sustainable development for future generations essay

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Sustainable Development: Samples in 250, 300 and 500 Words

• Updated on  
• Nov 18, 2023

On 3rd August 2023, the Indian Government released its Net zero emissions target policy to reduce its carbon footprints. To achieve the sustainable development goals (SDG) , as specified by the UN, India is determined for its long-term low-carbon development strategy. Selfishly pursuing modernization, humans have frequently compromised with the requirements of a more sustainable environment.

As a result, the increased environmental depletion is evident with the prevalence of deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gases, climate change etc. To combat these challenges, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change launched the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) in 2019. The objective was to improve air quality in 131 cities in 24 States/UTs by engaging multiple stakeholders.

‘Development is not real until and unless it is sustainable development.’ – Ban Ki-Moon

Sustainable Development Goals, also known as SGDs, are a list of 17 goals to build a sustained and better tomorrow. These 17 SDGs are known as the ‘World’s Best Plan’ to eradicate property, tackle climate change, and empower people for global welfare.

This Blog Includes:

What is sustainable development, essay on sustainable development in 250 words, 300 words essay on sustainable development, 500 words essay on sustainable development, what are sdgs, introduction, conclusion of sustainable development essay, importance of sustainable development, examples of sustainable development.

As the term simply explains, Sustainable Development aims to bring a balance between meeting the requirements of what the present demands while not overlooking the needs of future generations. It acknowledges nature’s requirements along with the human’s aim to work towards the development of different aspects of the world. It aims to efficiently utilise resources while also meticulously planning the accomplishment of immediate as well as long-term goals for human beings, the planet as well and future generations. In the present time, the need for Sustainable Development is not only for the survival of mankind but also for its future protection. 

To give you an idea of the way to deliver a well-written essay, we have curated a sample on sustainable development below, with 250 words:

To give you an idea of the way to deliver a well-written essay, we have curated a sample on sustainable development below, with 300+ words:

We all remember the historical @BTS_twt speech supporting #Youth2030 initiative to empower young people to use their voices for change. Tomorrow, #BTSARMY 💜 will be in NYC🗽again for the #SDGmoment at #UNGA76 Live 8AM EST welcome back #BTSARMY 👏🏾 pic.twitter.com/pUnBni48bq — The Sustainable Development Goals #SDG🫶 (@ConnectSDGs) September 19, 2021

To give you an idea of the way to deliver a well-written essay, we have curated a sample on sustainable development below, with 500 + words:

Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs are a list of 17 goals to build a better world for everyone. These goals are developed by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations. Let’s have a look at these sustainable development goals.

• Eradicate Poverty
• Zero Hunger
• Good Health and Well-being
• Quality Education
• Gender Equality
• Clean Water and Sanitation
• Affordable and Clean Energy
• Decent Work and Economic Growth
• Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
• Reduced Inequalities
• Sustainable Cities and Communities
• Responsible Consumption and Production
• Climate Action
• Life Below Water
• Life on Land
• Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
• Partnership for the Goals

Essay Format

Before drafting an essay on Sustainable Development, students need to get familiarised with the format of essay writing, to know how to structure the essay on a given topic. Take a look at the following pointers which elaborate upon the format of a 300-350 word essay.

Introduction (50-60 words) In the introduction, students must introduce or provide an overview of the given topic, i.e. highlighting and adding recent instances and questions related to sustainable development. Body of Content (100-150 words) The area of the content after the introduction can be explained in detail about why sustainable development is important, its objectives and highlighting the efforts made by the government and various institutions towards it.  Conclusion (30-40 words) In the essay on Sustainable Development, you must add a conclusion wrapping up the content in about 2-3 lines, either with an optimistic touch to it or just summarizing what has been talked about above.

How to write the introduction of a sustainable development essay? To begin with your essay on sustainable development, you must mention the following points:

• What is sustainable development?
• What does sustainable development focus on?
• Why is it useful for the environment?

How to write the conclusion of a sustainable development essay? To conclude your essay on sustainable development, mention why it has become the need of the hour. Wrap up all the key points you have mentioned in your essay and provide some important suggestions to implement sustainable development.

The importance of sustainable development is that it meets the needs of the present generations without compromising on the needs of the coming future generations. Sustainable development teaches us to use our resources correctly. Listed below are some points which tell us the importance of sustainable development.

• Focuses on Sustainable Agricultural Methods – Sustainable development is important because it takes care of the needs of future generations and makes sure that the increasing population does not put a burden on Mother Earth. It promotes agricultural techniques such as crop rotation and effective seeding techniques.
• Manages Stabilizing the Climate – We are facing the problem of climate change due to the excessive use of fossil fuels and the killing of the natural habitat of animals. Sustainable development plays a major role in preventing climate change by developing practices that are sustainable. It promotes reducing the use of fossil fuels which release greenhouse gases that destroy the atmosphere.
• Provides Important Human Needs – Sustainable development promotes the idea of saving for future generations and making sure that resources are allocated to everybody. It is based on the principle of developing an infrastructure that is can be sustained for a long period of time.
• Sustain Biodiversity – If the process of sustainable development is followed, the home and habitat of all other living animals will not be depleted. As sustainable development focuses on preserving the ecosystem it automatically helps in sustaining and preserving biodiversity.
• Financial Stability – As sustainable development promises steady development the economies of countries can become stronger by using renewable sources of energy as compared to using fossil fuels, of which there is only a particular amount on our planet.

Mentioned below are some important examples of sustainable development. Have a look:

• Wind Energy – Wind energy is an easily available resource. It is also a free resource. It is a renewable source of energy and the energy which can be produced by harnessing the power of wind will be beneficial for everyone. Windmills can produce energy which can be used to our benefit. It can be a helpful source of reducing the cost of grid power and is a fine example of sustainable development. 
• Solar Energy – Solar energy is also a source of energy which is readily available and there is no limit to it. Solar energy is being used to replace and do many things which were first being done by using non-renewable sources of energy. Solar water heaters are a good example. It is cost-effective and sustainable at the same time.
• Crop Rotation – To increase the potential of growth of gardening land, crop rotation is an ideal and sustainable way. It is rid of any chemicals and reduces the chances of disease in the soil. This form of sustainable development is beneficial to both commercial farmers and home gardeners.
• Efficient Water Fixtures – The installation of hand and head showers in our toilets which are efficient and do not waste or leak water is a method of conserving water. Water is essential for us and conserving every drop is important. Spending less time under the shower is also a way of sustainable development and conserving water.
• Sustainable Forestry – This is an amazing way of sustainable development where the timber trees that are cut by factories are replaced by another tree. A new tree is planted in place of the one which was cut down. This way, soil erosion is prevented and we have hope of having a better, greener future.

Related Articles

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of 17 global goals established by the United Nations in 2015. These include: No Poverty Zero Hunger Good Health and Well-being Quality Education Gender Equality Clean Water and Sanitation Affordable and Clean Energy Decent Work and Economic Growth Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure Reduced Inequality Sustainable Cities and Communities Responsible Consumption and Production Climate Action Life Below Water Life on Land Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions Partnerships for the Goals

The SDGs are designed to address a wide range of global challenges, such as eradicating extreme poverty globally, achieving food security, focusing on promoting good health and well-being, inclusive and equitable quality education, etc.

India is ranked #111 in the Sustainable Development Goal Index 2023 with a score of 63.45.

Hence, we hope that this blog helped you understand the key features of an essay on sustainable development. If you are interested in Environmental studies and planning to pursue sustainable tourism courses , take the assistance of Leverage Edu ’s AI-based tool to browse through a plethora of programs available in this specialised field across the globe and find the best course and university combination that fits your interests, preferences and aspirations. Call us immediately at 1800 57 2000 for a free 30-minute counselling session

Team Leverage Edu

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Thanks a lot for this important essay.

NICELY AND WRITTEN WITH CLARITY TO CONCEIVE THE CONCEPTS BEHIND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

Thankyou so much!

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Essay On Sustainable Development

500 words essay on  sustainable development.

Sustainable development is basically an action plan which helps us to achieve sustainability in any activity which makes use of the resource. Moreover, it also demands immediate and intergenerational replication. Through essay on sustainable development, we will help you understand the concept and its advantages.

Through sustainable development, we formulate organising principles which help to sustain the limited resources essential to provide for the needs of our future generations. As a result, they will be able to lead a content life on the planet .

What is Sustainable Development?

The World Commission on Environment and Development popularized this concept in 1987. Their report defines the idea as a “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”

In other words, they aimed to prevent the stripping the natural world of resources which the future generations will require. As we all know that usually, one particular need drives development. Consequently, the wider future impacts are not considered.

As a result, a lot of damage happens due to this type of approach. Thus, the longer we continue to pursue unsustainable development, the more severe will the consequences be. One of the most common is climate change which is being debated widely worldwide.

In fact, climate change is already wreaking havoc on our surroundings. So, the need of the hour is sustainable development. We must ask ourselves, must we leave a scorched planet with an ailing environment for our future generations?

In order to undo the mess created by us, we must follow sustainable development. This will help us promote a more social, environmental and economical thinking. Most importantly, it is not that difficult to attain this.

We must see that world as a system which connects space, and time. Basically, it helps you understand that water pollution in South Africa will ultimately impact water quality in India. Similarly, it is the case for other things as well.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Measures to Practice Sustainable Development

There are many measures to take up for practising sustainable development. To begin with, it is important to ensure clean and hygienic living and working conditions for the people.

Next, sponsoring research on environmental issues which pertains to regions. Further, ensuring safety against known and proven industrial hazards. It is also important to find economical methods to salvage dangerous industrial wastes.

Most importantly, we must encourage afforestation . Including environmental education as part of the school and college curriculum will also help. Similarly, it is essential to socialize and humanize all environmental issues.

Further, we must encourage uses of non-conventional sources of energy, especially solar energy. Looking for substitutes for proven dangerous materials on the basis of local resources and needs will help. Likewise, we must produce environment-friendly products.

It is also essential to popularize the use of organic fertilizers and other biotechniques. Finally, the key is environmental management which must be monitored and ensure accountability.

Conclusion of Essay on Sustainable Development

To sum it up, sustainable development continuously seeks to achieve social and economic progress in ways which will not exhaust the Earth’s finite natural resources. Thus, we must all develop ways to meet these needs so that our future generations can inherit a healthier and greener planet.

FAQ on Essay on Sustainable Development

Question 1: State two measures we can take for sustainable development.

Answer 1: The first measure we can take is by finding economical methods for salvaging hazardous industrial wastes. Next, we must encourage afforestation.

Question 2: What is the aim of sustainable development?

Answer 2 : The aim of sustainable development is to maximise human well-being or quality of life without having to risk the life support system.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Sustainable Development Essay

500+ words essay on sustainable development.

Sustainable development is a central concept. It is a way of understanding the world and a method for solving global problems. The world population continues to rise rapidly. This increasing population needs basic essential things for their survival such as food, safe water, health care and shelter. This is where the concept of sustainable development comes into play. Sustainable development means meeting the needs of people without compromising the ability of future generations. In this essay on sustainable development, students will understand what sustainable development means and how we can practise sustainable development. Students can also access the list of CBSE essay topics to practise more essays.

What Does Sustainable Development Means?

The term “Sustainable Development” is defined as the development that meets the needs of the present generation without excessive use or abuse of natural resources so that they can be preserved for the next generation. There are three aims of sustainable development; first, the “Economic” which will help to attain balanced growth, second, the “Environment”, to preserve the ecosystem, and third, “Society” which will guarantee equal access to resources to all human beings. The key principle of sustainable development is the integration of environmental, social, and economic concerns into all aspects of decision-making.

Need for Sustainable Development?

There are several challenges that need attention in the arena of economic development and environmental depletion. Hence the idea of sustainable development is essential to address these issues. The need for sustainable development arises to curb or prevent environmental degradation. It will check the overexploitation and wastage of natural resources. It will help in finding alternative sources to regenerate renewable energy resources. It ensures a safer human life and a safer future for the next generation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the need to keep sustainable development at the very core of any development strategy. The pandemic has challenged the health infrastructure, adversely impacted livelihoods and exacerbated the inequality in the food and nutritional availability in the country. The immediate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic enabled the country to focus on sustainable development. In these difficult times, several reform measures have been taken by the Government. The State Governments also responded with several measures to support those affected by the pandemic through various initiatives and reliefs to fight against this pandemic.

How to Practise Sustainable Development?

The concept of sustainable development was born to address the growing and changing environmental challenges that our planet is facing. In order to do this, awareness must be spread among the people with the help of many campaigns and social activities. People can adopt a sustainable lifestyle by taking care of a few things such as switching off the lights when not in use; thus, they save electricity. People must use public transport as it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. They should save water and not waste food. They build a habit of using eco-friendly products. They should minimise waste generation by adapting to the principle of the 4 R’s which stands for refuse, reduce, reuse and recycle.

The concept of sustainable development must be included in the education system so that students get aware of it and start practising a sustainable lifestyle. With the help of empowered youth and local communities, many educational institutions should be opened to educate people about sustainable development. Thus, adapting to a sustainable lifestyle will help to save our Earth for future generations. Moreover, the Government of India has taken a number of initiatives on both mitigation and adaptation strategies with an emphasis on clean and efficient energy systems; resilient urban infrastructure; water conservation & preservation; safe, smart & sustainable green transportation networks; planned afforestation etc. The Government has also supported various sectors such as agriculture, forestry, coastal and low-lying systems and disaster management.

Students must have found this essay on sustainable development useful for practising their essay writing skills. They can get the study material and the latest updates on CBSE/ICSE/State Board/Competitive Exams, at BYJU’S.

Frequently Asked Questions on Sustainable development Essay

Why is sustainable development a hot topic for discussion.

Environment change and constant usage of renewable energy have become a concern for all of us around the globe. Sustainable development must be inculcated in young adults so that they make the Earth a better place.

What will happen if we do not practise sustainable development?

Landfills with waste products will increase and thereby there will be no space and land for humans and other species/organisms to thrive on.

What are the advantages of sustainable development?

Sustainable development helps secure a proper lifestyle for future generations. It reduces various kinds of pollution on Earth and ensures economic growth and development.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

By Özge Aydoğan, Eleonora Bonaccorsi, and Trine Schmidt 

In an effort to deliver the 2030 Agenda through a reformed multilateral system , the UN Secretary-General will publish eleven policy briefs between March and July 2023. The policy briefs are intended to propose concrete actions under Our Common Agenda and to inform the discussions of Members States in advance of the 2023 SDG Summit and the Summit of the Future in 2024. The first brief, published on 9 March under the title, ‘ To Think and Act for Future Generations ,’ provides a number of suggestions and practical steps in ensuring that intergenerational solidarity becomes the guiding star of sustainable development and renewal of the multilateral system.

Based on the Secretary-General’s paper, this Policy Brief aims to shed light on why it is important to adopt a future generations approach in policy design as a way to achieve long-term sustainability and to examine how the UN intends to embrace this approach in practice. 

Future generations are at the heart of sustainable development. The definition of sustainable development , as frequently quoted from the 1987 Brundtland report, is centered on the notion of future generations. It defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (emphasis added). Taking this definition into account, one might question why we are stuck in a short-term mindset when it comes to achieving the SDGs and a sustainable future.

The current dominant political, social, and economic systems favor short-term gains and quick fixes at the expense of longer-term planetary and human wellbeing and prosperity. A paradigm shift is required in how we measure and value what matters to peoples and the planet. To uphold the initial promises of sustainable development, it is crucial to awaken to the fact that future ways of living, interacting, and doing business are non-linear and will look very different from now on. Thus, it is of utmost importance to re-think systems based on intergenerational solidarity.

Responding to questions raised by Member States on balancing responsibility between generations, those living today and those not yet born, the policy brief highlights that the needs of present and future generations are not at odds, arguing that efforts to consider the future will leave all generations better off. It poses the need to think and act with future generations in mind as an imperative to fight inequality as “[p]rivilege and poverty both transmit powerfully across generations.” The brief also cites the elements paper for the declaration for future generations to remind us that the “intergenerational transmission of inequality, including gender inequality, is well documented.”

This is an important recognition of the structural nature of inequality, one which cannot be overcome by individuals, communities, or even countries alone. To fight inequality, we need to apply a long-term perspective, one which uses hindsight to adequately account for the injustices of the past – and foresight to understand how to transform our societies so that they become just and inclusive, now and in the future.

What’s next: Making commitments to future generations actionable

The UN Secretary-General’s policy brief recognizes that we do not lack commitments to take future generations into account, listing the many references to future generations and pointing out that nearly 400 UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions explicitly cite future generations. Some of the most notable commitments are found in the adoption of UN Charter itself, the definition of sustainable development as outlined above, and the 1997 UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations Towards Future Generations .

What we lack is practical mechanisms and concrete steps. The Secretary-General’s policy brief proposes four steps to be taken at the global level. The first step is the appointment of a special Envoy for Future Generations. The envoy would have an advisory capacity focused on: intergenerational and future impacts of policies and programmes; facilitating collaboration and best practices on the topic of future generations; and better use of foresight methods. The brief recognizes that there are many examples of this approach from Member States. One notable example is the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales .

Related to the mandate of the special envoy, and linked to the notion of long-term sustainability, the brief argues that it is necessary to enhance the capacity of the UN system in applying strategic foresight methods. Strategic foresight can help us assess, understand, and adapt policies and practices that will affect generations yet to be born. This will require a significant shift in mindsets towards the long term and moving away from our current short-termism. A combination of forecasting models and foresight practices within institutions and society will help expand our collective thinking and policymaking towards systems that are centered around human values and aligned with the planetary boundaries we live in, ultimately securing the needs of present and future generations.

Third, the brief encourages Member States to adopt a political declaration on the “duties to the future.” This declaration should serve to put existing commitments made to future generations into action by making these concrete, including clearly defining what is meant by future generations.

Finally, and related to the political declaration, the Secretary-General’s policy brief suggests establishing an intergovernmental forum on future generations. This forum would play a key role in making sure commitments in the political declaration do not just add to the extensive list of previous commitments made to future generations but are put into practice. Again, in this regard the brief acknowledges the inspiration from Member States that have been working to implement a future generations perspective into policy. Examples include the Committee for the Future , a standing committee in the Finnish Parliament since 1993.

It is noteworthy that in the Welsh and Finnish examples mentioned above, working for future generations is associated with bringing in a diversity of voices, including civil society, to understand and jointly assess the impact of current activities on future generations. Thus, in addition to supporting long-term thinking, this model can also serve to encourage multi-stakeholder collaboration, with the recognition that we need diverse expertise and diverse representation to adequately consider the effects of our actions on the future. Furthermore, Wales’s Well-being of Future Generations Act aims to improve the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being. This is distinct from the 2030 Agenda, as it specifically includes culture as an additional dimension of sustainability.

The 2024 Summit of the Future and the preparatory processes ahead of it represent a unique opportunity to ensure that we uphold the core principle of sustainable development by ensuring that the decisions we take today are future-proofed and aligned with a long-term sustainability vision. It will be important that global civil society have an equal voice in the process and at the Summit, in particular to (re)introduce alternative ways of thinking about time, the future, and generations, including by drawing on Indigenous knowledge and considering the cultural sustainability of our policies and actions.

In preparation for the 2023 SDG Summit and the Summit of the Future in 2024, the UN Secretary-General is launching eleven policy briefs between March and July 2023, offering “concrete ideas” on how to advance Our Common Agenda. Timed accordingly, the SDG Knowledge Hub is publishing a series of policy briefs of its own, offering insights on the issue areas covered in these publications.

Özge Aydoğan is Director of the SDG Lab at UN Geneva .

Eleonora Bonaccorsi is Program Officer at IISD and part of the SDG Lab.

Trine Schmidt is Policy Advisor at IISD and part the SDG Lab. 

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

sustainable development

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Salt Lake Community College Pressbooks - Introduction to Human Geography - Sustainable Development
• Academia - Sustainable Development and its Dimensions

sustainable development , approach to social, economic, and environmental planning that attempts to balance the social and economic needs of present and future human generations with the imperative of preserving, or preventing undue damage to, the natural environment .

Sustainable development lacks a single detailed and widely accepted definition. As a general approach to human development , it is frequently understood to encompass most if not all of the following goals, ideals, and values:

• A global perspective on social, economic, and environmental policies that takes into account the needs of future generations
• A recognition of the instrumental value of a sound natural environment , including the importance of biodiversity
• The protection and appreciation of the needs of Indigenous cultures
• The cultivation of economic and social equity in societies throughout the world
• The responsible and transparent implementation of government policies

The intellectual underpinnings of sustainable development lie in modern natural resource management , the 20th-century conservation and environmentalism movements, and progressive views of economic development . The first principles of what later became known as sustainable development were laid out at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment , also called the Stockholm Conference. The conference concluded that continued development of industry was inevitable and desirable but also that every citizen of the world has a responsibility to protect the environment. In 1987 the UN -sponsored World Commission on Environment and Development issued the Brundtland Report (also called Our Common Future ), which introduced the concept of sustainable development—defining it as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”—and described how it could be achieved. At the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (also called the Earth Summit), more than 178 countries adopted Agenda 21, which outlined global strategies for restoring the environment and encouraging environmentally sound development.

Since that time, sustainable development has emerged as a core idea of international development theory and policy. However, some experts have criticized certain features of the concept, including:

• Its generality or vagueness, which has led to a great deal of debate over which forms or aspects of development qualify as “sustainable”
• Its lack of quantifiable or objectively measurable goals
• Its assumption of the inevitability and desirability of industrialization and economic development
• Its failure to ultimately prioritize human needs or environmental commitments, either of which may reasonably be considered more important in certain circumstances

Although the implementation of sustainable development has been the subject of many social scientific studies—so many, in fact, that sustainable development science is sometimes viewed as a distinct field—a number of public intellectuals and scholars have argued that the core value of sustainable development lies in its aspirational perspective. These writers have argued that merely attempting to balance social, economic, and environmental policymaking—the three “pillars” of sustainable development—is an inherently positive practice. Even if an imbalance of results is to a certain extent inevitable, it is better that policymakers at least attempt to achieve a balance. Abandoning the notion of sustainable development altogether, they argue, would likely worsen social, economic, and environmental conditions throughout the world, thus undermining all three pillars.

Despite widespread criticism , sustainable development has emerged as a core feature of national and international policymaking, particularly by agencies of the United Nations . In 2015 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which included 17 sweeping goals designed to create a globally equitable society alongside a thriving environment.

Search the site

Links to social media channels

Sustainable Development

What is sustainable development? Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Sustainable development has been defined in many ways, but the most frequently quoted definition is from Our Common Future , also known as the Brundtland Report:

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Sustainability is the foundation for today’s leading global framework for international cooperation — the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its  Sustainable Development Goals  (SDGs). In June 2022, environmental leaders from around the world met to take stock of where we've been and where we are heading, with the goal of galvanizing momentum for the UN Decade of Action for achieving the SDGs.

These conferences are major milestones in sustainable development governance. But their real test comes from the work that happens every day, from individuals and local communities to international organizations and beyond.

At IISD, we are honoured to be part of the community working towards a world where people and the planet thrive.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The 17 SDGs were adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015, with 169 targets to reach by 2030 or sooner. The goals and targets are universal, meaning they apply to all countries around the world.

A Visual History of Sustainable Development

From stockholm 1972 to stockholm+50: why these milestones matter.

The Legacy of the Stockholm Conference

In 1972, the Stockholm Conference set off a chain of events that rewrote how countries tackle environmental challenges. How do we take the lessons of the past half century and apply them to our triple planetary crisis?

June 1, 2022

The Significance of Stockholm+50

Ambassador Johanna Lissinger-Peitz of Sweden explains why it matters that we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Stockholm Conference and how we live up to its vision.

What Comes After Stockholm+50?

World leaders will mark half a century since the 1972 Stockholm Conference... and then depart. What comes next as we face accelerating societal and environmental challenges?

Sustainable Development Governance: Then and now

Our Earth Negotiations Bulletin reporters have analyzed the highs and lows of the past half-century of international environmental diplomacy, from the original United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972 until the present.

Still Only One Earth: Lessons from 50 years of UN sustainable development policy

A policy brief series takes stock of how environmental progress has been fostered in the past and how to leverage those lessons in current crises.

Stockholm and the Birth of Environmental Diplomacy

A 1972 UN conference began modern international cooperation on the environment. What lessons should we take from it amid mounting global crises?

September 10, 2020

Stockholm+50: Weaving global environmental governance

The Stockholm Conference in 1972 created the framework that still guides how countries negotiate environmental deals. How do we fulfill its vision?

May 24, 2022

Achieving the ambition of Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and the SDGs requires action on all fronts — governments, businesses, civil society, and people everywhere all have a role to play.

To find out more about where things stand ahead of the 2030 deadline, explore our SDG Knowledge Hub — an online resource centre for daily news, original commentary from our experts , guest articles from key actors in SDG implementation, and a calendar of upcoming events related to the 2030 Agenda.

IISD's Work Areas

IISD is guided by five priorities that we deem ripe for transformation, where shifts in policy have the potential to change the nature of the game within this decade.

Address the causes of climate change and adapt to its impact.

Support the sustainable management of our natural resources.

Foster fair and sustainable economies.

Act Together

Build the capacity to act together on sustainability.

Deliver insights that spark action on sustainable development.

Stay Connected

Sustainable development is in the news every day as the world copes with our triple planetary crisis of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution. Be the first to hear what's new and learn about the latest research, events, and more.

What do we owe future generations? And what can we do to make their world a better place?

Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Australian Catholic University

Disclosure statement

Michael Noetel receives funding from the Australian Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council, the Centre for Effective Altruism, and Sport Australia. He is a Director of Effective Altruism Australia.

Australian Catholic University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Your great grandchildren are powerless in today’s society. As Oxford philosopher William MacAskill says:

They cannot vote or lobby or run for public office, so politicians have scant incentive to think about them. They can’t bargain or trade with us, so they have little representation in the market, And they can’t make their views heard directly: they can’t tweet, or write articles in newspapers, or march in the streets. They are utterly disenfranchised.

But the things we do now influence them: for better or worse. We make laws that govern them, build infrastructure for them and take out loans for them to pay back. So what happens when we consider future generations while we make decisions today?

Review: What We Owe the Future – William MacAskill (OneWorld)

This is the key question in What We Owe the Future . It argues for what MacAskill calls longtermism: “the idea that positively influencing the longterm future is a key moral priority of our time.” He describes it as an extension of civil rights and women’s suffrage; as humanity marches on, we strive to consider a wider circle of people when making decisions about how to structure our societies.

MacAskill makes a compelling case that we should consider how to ensure a good future not only for our children’s children, but also the children of their children. In short, MacAskill argues that “future people count, there could be a lot of them, and we can make their lives go better.”

Read more: Friday essay: 'I feel my heart breaking today' – a climate scientist's path through grief towards hope

Future people count

It’s hard to feel for future people. We are bad enough at feeling for our future selves. As The Simpsons puts it: “That’s a problem for future Homer. Man, I don’t envy that guy.”

We all know we should protect our health for our own future. In a similar vein, MacAskill argues that we all “know” future people count.

Concern for future generations is common sense across diverse intellectual traditions […] When we dispose of radioactive waste, we don’t say, “Who cares if this poisons people centuries from now?” Similarly, few of us who care about climate change or pollution do so solely for the sake of people alive today. We build museums and parks and bridges that we hope will last for generations; we invest in schools and longterm scientific projects; we preserve paintings, traditions, languages; we protect beautiful places.

There could be a lot of future people

Future people count, and MacAskill counts those people. The sheer number of future people might make their wellbeing a key moral priority. According to MacAskill and others, humanity’s future could be vast : much, much more than the 8 billion alive today.

While it’s hard to feel the gravitas, our actions may affect a dizzying number of people. Even if we last just 1 million years, as long as the average mammal – and even if the global population fell to 1 billion people – then there would be 9.1 trillion people in the future.

We might struggle to care, because these numbers can be hard to feel . Our emotions don’t track well against large numbers. If I said a nuclear war would kill 500 million people, you might see that as a “huge problem”. If I instead said that the number is actually closer to 5 billion , it still feels like a “huge problem”. It does not emotionally feel 10 times worse. If we risk the trillions of people who could live in the future, that could be 1,000 times worse – but it doesn’t feel 1,000 times worse.

MacAskill does not argue we should give those people 1,000 times more concern than people alive today. Likewise, MacAskill does not say we should morally weight a person living a million years from now exactly the same as someone alive 10 or 100 years from now. Those distinctions won’t change what we can feasibly achieve now, given how hard change can be.

Instead, he shows if we care about future people at all, even those 100 years hence, we should simply be doing more . Fortunately, there are concrete things humanity can do.

Read more: Labor's climate change bill is set to become law – but 3 important measures are missing

We can make the lives of future people better

Another reason we struggle to be motivated by big problems is that they feel insurmountable. This is a particular concern with future generations. Does anything I do make a difference, or is it a drop in the bucket? How do we know what to do when the long-run effects are so uncertain ?

Even present-day problems can feel hard to tackle. At least for those problems we can get fast, reliable feedback on progress. Even with that advantage, we struggle. For the second year in a row, we did not make progress toward our sustainable development goals, like reducing war, poverty, and increasing growth. Globally, 4.3% of children still die before the age of five. COVID-19 has killed about 23 million people . Can we – and should we – justify focusing on future generations when we face these problems now?

MacAskill argues we can. Because the number of people is so large, he also argues we should. He identifies some areas where we could do things that protect the future while also helping people who are alive now. Many solutions are win-win.

For example, the current pandemic has shown that unforeseen events can have a devastating effect. Yet, despite the recent pandemic, many governments have done little to set up more robust systems that could prevent the next pandemic. MacAskill outlines ways in which those future pandemics could be worse.

Most worrying are the threats from engineered pathogens, which

[…] could be much more destructive than natural pathogens because they can be modified to have dangerous new properties. Could someone design a pathogen with maximum destructive power—something with the lethality of Ebola and the contagiousness of measles?

He gives examples, like militaries and terrorist groups, that have tried to engineer pathogens in the past.

The risk of an engineered pandemic wiping us all out in the next 100 years is between 0.1% and 3%, according to estimates laid out in the book.

That might sound low, but MacAskill argues we would not step on a plane if you were told “it ‘only’ had a one-in-a-thousand chance of crashing and killing everyone on board”. These threaten not only future generations, but people reading this – and everyone they know.

MacAskill outlines ways in which we might be able to prevent engineered pandemics, like researching better personal protective equipment, cheaper and faster diagnostics, better infrastructure, or better governance of synthetic biology. Doing so would help save the lives of people alive today, reduce the risk of technological stagnation and protect humanity’s future.

The same win-wins might apply to decarbonisation , safe development of artificial intelligence , reducing risks from nuclear war , and other threats to humanity.

Read more: Even a 'limited' nuclear war would starve millions of people, new study reveals

Things you can do to protect future generations

Some “longtermist” issues, like climate change, are already firmly in the public consciousness. As a result, some may find MacAskill’s book “common sense”. Others may find the speculation about the far future pretty wild (like all possible views of the longterm future).

MacAskill strikes an accessible balance between anchoring the arguments to concrete examples, while making modest extrapolations into the future. He helps us see how “common sense” principles can lead to novel or neglected conclusions.

For example, if there is any moral weight on future people, then many common societal goals (like faster economic growth) are vastly less important than reducing risks of extinction (like nuclear non-proliferation). It makes humanity look like an “imprudent teenager”, with many years ahead, but more power than wisdom:

Even if you think [the risk of extinction] is only a one-in-a-thousand, the risk to humanity this century is still ten times higher than the risk of your dying this year in a car crash. If humanity is like a teenager, then she is one who speeds around blind corners, drunk, without wearing a seat belt.

Our biases toward present, local problems are strong, so connecting emotionally with the ideas can be hard. But MacAskill makes a compelling case for longtermism through clear stories and good metaphors. He answers many questions I had about safeguarding the future. Will the future be good or bad? Would it really matter if humanity ended? And, importantly, is there anything I can actually do?

The short answer is yes, there is. Things you might already do help, like minimising your carbon footprint – but MacAskill argues “other things you can do are radically more impactful”. For example, reducing your meat consumption would address climate change, but donating money to the world’s most effective climate charities might be far more effective.

Beyond donations, three other personal decisions seem particularly high impact to me: political activism, spreading good ideas, and having children […] But by far the most important decision you will make, in terms of your lifetime impact, is your choice of career.

MacAskill points to a range of resources – many of which he founded – that guide people in these areas. For those who might have flexibility in their career, MacAskill founded 80,000 Hours , which helps people find impactful, satisfying careers. For those trying to donate more impactfully, he founded Giving What We Can. And, for spreading good ideas, he started a social movement called Effective Altruism .

Longtermism is one of those good ideas. It helps us better place our present in humanity’s bigger story. It’s humbling and inspiring to see the role we can play in protecting the future. We can enjoy life now and safeguard the future for our great grandchildren. MasAskill clearly shows that we owe it to them.

• Climate change
• Generations
• Future generations
• Effective altruism
• Longtermism

Business Development Manager, MDHS

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

College Director and Principal | Curtin College

Head of School: Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences

Educational Designer

• Environment & Nature
• Nutrition & Food
• Health & Wellbeing
• Clothing & Textiles
• Economy & Business

• Utopia Newsletter
• telegram1 share

What Is Sustainable Development and Why Is It Necessary?

By India Willsher Categories: Environment & Nature August 25, 2023, 4:00 PM

The UN’s sustainable development goals are a universal call to action to end poverty and social inequality while tackling climate change. Learn what sustainable development is and how it can be achieved.

In an era where headlines are dominated by tales of climate change, resource depletion , and vanishing wildlife and ecosystem diversity , the concept of sustainable development has emerged as a beacon of hope for our planet’s future.

For many, this term might seem like just another buzzword, or perhaps a vague ideal that sounds too good to be true. But for those who dig deeper into the environmental movement and the dire needs of our world, it’s clear that sustainable development is not only crucial but completely attainable .

At the intersection of economic growth, environmental integrity and societal wellbeing, sustainable development charts a path towards a world where humans and nature coexist harmoniously. Below, we unpack the significance of this concept, and why championing its cause is essential for the survival and flourishing of our civilization and the Earth.

What Is Sustainable Development?

Sustainable development is an approach to development that balances different needs against an awareness of the environmental, social and economic limitations we face as a society.

Examples of sustainable development include:

• investing in various types of renewable energy such as solar energy , hydropower , wind or biomass fuels
• creating more green cities and green spaces like parks where plants and wildlife can thrive
• promoting sustainable agriculture and farming methods such as crop rotation

A commonly referenced definition comes from the Brundtland Report : “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs .”

What are CSA farms? Community Supported Agriculture refers to a farming operation in which growers and consumers join forces to…

The Flip Side: What Is Unsustainable Development?

Unsustainable development occurs when current progress is at the expense of future generations. Unsustainable development includes unsystematic planning that causes environmental degradation , such as the use of fossil fuels , or farming methods that cause damage to animals and ecosystems, such as industrial slash-and-burn farming .

In 2015, all UN Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The agenda proposes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which focus on tackling climate change and ending poverty.

The UN’s SDGs are:

• Zero Hunger
• Good Health and Well-Being
• Quality Education
• Gender Equality
• Clean Water and Sanitation
• Affordable and Clean Energy
• Decent Work and Economic Growth
• Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
• Reduced Inequalities
• Sustainable Cities and Communities
• Responsible Consumption and Production
• Climate Action
• Life Below Water
• Life on Land
• Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
• Partnerships for the Goals

Overall, the development goals recognize strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, erase hunger and spur economic growth.

Why is Sustainable Development Important?

The world is facing serious environmental challenges including climate change, freshwater depletion, ocean over-fishing , deforestation , water and air pollution and hunger. Sustainable development is crucial as it focuses on improving human-environment interaction by prioritizing the management and protection of the earth’s natural resources for future generations, as well as for the millions of other species on our planet.

By promoting stable economic growth, conservation of natural resources, environmental protection and social progress and equality, we can conserve and enhance our natural resources so that all countries can meet basic needs of employment, food, energy, water and sanitation.

Human activity has far-reaching consequences, and water pollution is a major concern. Here are the 10 biggest causes of water…

How Can the US Achieve Sustainable Development?

The US was ranked 35th globally on sustainable development out of 162 countries in 2019. The ranking is based on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, which were unanimously adopted in 2015 by the 193 member states of the United Nations. Issues such as poverty, income inequalities, and universal access to healthcare and other public services are areas that the US needs to improve.

President Joe Biden, who entered office in 2021, promised to aim for sustainable development with economic transformations including the promotion of opportunity and inclusive economic growth, while addressing climate change and environmental sustainability.

Compared to other developed countries — or countries in the Global North — America ranks low in regard to social inclusion and environmental sustainability. Social inequality is high, and there are substantial gaps between the richest and the poorest in society. For example, the richest ten percent of people in the US own 70 percent of the country’s wealth.

Today, more than two million Americans live without running water and basic indoor plumbing, and many more live without sanitation. This can easily be interpreted as environmental racism , as these communities largely comprise marginalized people in low-income and rural areas, people of color and Indigenous communities.

Environmental sustainability is weak because powerful corporate lobbies for fossil fuels and heavy industry have precedence over sustainable environmental development.

From Donald Trump to Koch Industries, these climate change deniers weave a web of misinformation that hinders climate action.

Read more: 

• What Causes Floods & How Does Climate Change Contribute?
• The Great Climate Change Hoax? How to Fight Climate Denial
• Conservation vs. Preservation: Differences & Similarities
• Eco-Anxiety: Climate Change Stress and How to Cope

Do you like this post?

Tags: Business Environmental Protection Farming Guide Must reads Sustainability

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 15 September 2020

The SDGs and human well-being: a global analysis of synergies, trade-offs, and regional differences

• Jan-Emmanuel De Neve 1 , 2 &
• Jeffrey D. Sachs 3 , 4  

Scientific Reports volume  10 , Article number:  15113 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

27k Accesses

74 Citations

39 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Psychology and behaviour
• Sustainability

This paper explores the empirical links between achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and subjective well-being. Globally, we find that in terms of well-being, there are increasing marginal returns to sustainable development. Unpacking the SDGs by looking at how each SDG relates to well-being shows, in most cases, a strong positive correlation. However, SDG12 (responsible production and consumption) and SDG13 (climate action) are negatively correlated with well-being. This suggests that in the short run there may be certain trade-offs to sustainable development, and further heterogeneity is revealed through an analysis of how these relationships play out by region. Variance decomposition methods also suggest large differences in how each SDG contributes to explaining the variance in well-being between countries. These and other empirical insights highlight that more complex and contextualized policy efforts are needed in order to achieve sustainable development while optimising for well-being.

Similar content being viewed by others

Global effects of progress towards Sustainable Development Goals on subjective well-being

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Are we successful in turning trade-offs into synergies?

Examining the unsustainable relationship between SDG performance, ecological footprint and international spillovers

Introduction.

This paper explores the empirical links between sustainable development and human well-being. Sustainable development is a broad and easily misunderstood concept 1 , but the term first entered mainstream policy circles with the publishing of the Brundtland report in 1987, in which it was defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ 2 . Debate continues as to whether sustainable development in practice can live up to its normative promises of economic development, environmental stewardship and social equity 3 . Nonetheless, in 2015 the international community rallied around the idea, and sustainable development gained further exposition with the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as part of the broader 2030 Agenda. As the successors to the Millennium Development Goals, the 17 SDGs are a comprehensive set of policy goals that aim to end world poverty and hunger, address climate change and environmental protection, and ensure universal access to healthcare, education and equality 4 .

Parallel discussions have centred around the need to move away from GDP as an assessment of countries’ performance towards measures that better capture levels of happiness and well-being 5 . Subjective well-being measures differ from objective well-being indicators, such as observable health and material outcomes, in that they are based on respondents’ self-evaluations of their own life 6 . Varied research suggests that subjective well-being (SWB) measures, especially life evaluations, reflect underlying well-being 7 . As such, there is now a growing consensus among governments and international institutions that SWB—whilst imperfect 8 —has an important role to play in defining success and, as such, an increasing significance in policy-making 9 .

This research aims to explore the relationship between sustainable development and subjective well-being, with the potential to support future policy-making. To do so, we combine two major data-gathering efforts. We leverage the SDG Index which measures countries’ progress towards achieving the SDGs 10 . We also draw on an item from the Gallup World Poll which is representative of over 98% of the world’s population and asks survey participants to evaluate their lives on a scale of 0–10. The paper begins by discussing the headline positive correlation between the SDG Index and SWB. We analyse the quadratic relationship between the two, demonstrating that a higher SDG Index score correlates more strongly with higher SWB at higher levels of the SDG Index. Globally, we find that there are increasing marginal returns to sustainable development in terms of human well-being. In the next section, the SDG Index is split into its 17 component goals. We analyse the varying relationships with well-being, as well as how these relationships play out by region, finding that two of the environmental goals, Goal 12 (responsible consumption and production) and Goal 13 (climate action), are significantly negatively correlated with SWB. We finish by conducting a variance decomposition analysis to show which goals are most strongly contributing to the variation in well-being between countries and the world’s regions 11 .

Our analysis finds that more complex and contextualised policy efforts are needed in order to simultaneously achieve sustainable development and advance well-being. Human well-being is at the core of the 2030 Agenda 12 : the SDGs aim to ensure that ‘all human beings can fulfil their potential in dignity, equality and in a healthy environment 4 .’ Thus, one might expect to find a positive correlation between the SDGs and SWB. Detailed empirical work, however, shows the relationship to be more nuanced than might first appear. Whilst all SDGs are important, our analysis shows that some are more relevant to well-being than others, and reveals some inherent tensions that involve trade-offs between current and future well-being. Since governments are dependent on the current cohort of electors to decide their fate 13 , more cautious policy is needed to resolve trade-offs, allowing for sustainable development that also optimises for human well-being 14 . Unpacking the SDGs in terms of well-being also shows how their relative importance varies across different regions, highlighting the need for differentiated policy priorities when advancing the 2030 Agenda.

Data and methods

The SDG Index (SDGI) was developed in 2015 as a composite system to benchmark the performance of countries across the SDGs. Several indicators are selected to monitor the progress towards each goal, positioning them between the worst (0) and the target outcome (100). The overall SDGI score represents the mean of a country’s total SDG scores, where all goals are weighted equally. The same basket of indicators is used for all countries to generate comparable scores and rankings. For our analysis we use the 2019 SDG index, which includes 114 indicators covering 162 countries 10 . Note that in our analysis, the SDG Index is modified to remove the SWB score, which is one of the indicators for SDG 3 (Health and Well-being). Given the large number of variables that make up the SDG Index, we find that leaving in or taking out the SWB variable does not meaningfully impact any results. Limitations in collecting data for SDG indicators hinder full assessment of progress towards SDGs. There are also issues with the aggregation of goals into a single number 15 , nonetheless there is consensus that the SDGI provides ‘the most comprehensive picture of national progress on the SDGs’ 16 .

For our analysis we use life evaluations, the standard measure of well-being used in the World Happiness Report rankings and most other research on the topic 17 , 18 . We draw on data from the Gallup World Poll, which continually surveys 160 countries representing about 98% of the world’s adult population. The survey item asks respondents to value their current lives on a 0–10 scale, with the worst possible life as 0 and the best possible life as 10. The data is from nationally representative samples, for the years 2016–2018. Some methodological issues remain with subjective well-being measures 6 , but life evaluations are widely recognised as the standard measure of subjective well-being 7 , 19 . Data on other dimensions of subjective well-being, such as the experience of positive and negative emotions, are analysed separately and can be found in the Supplementary Information section online.

The analyses done in this paper rely on standard univariate linear correlations and OLS regressions. In line with the SDGI methodology, where scores are missing for specific goals, we impute using the regional average to avoid losing observations. This is most relevant for goal 14 (Life below water).

The variance decomposition method (dominance analysis) employed in Figs.  4 , 5 and 6 is run in Stata using the domin command. Dominance analysis calculates the relative contribution to the variance explained in well-being (R-squared) for the 17 SDGs. This is an ensemble method that works by calculating a regression of well-being on every possible combination of the 17 SDGS. The dominance of a goal is calculated as the weighted average marginal contribution to the explained variance that the goal makes across all models in which the goal is included. One important assumption being made in such an analysis is that it forces the SDGs to explain all of the variance in well-being between countries. There are also a number of other important limitations in that the method hinges on there being variance in the first place, and yet the measurements for some SDGs do not vary much.

Are the SDGs conducive to human well-being?

Figure  1 shows the scatterplot for the SDG Index and SWB for all countries in the dataset. Countries are coded to represent the six regions they belong to: Europe, Middle East and Northern Africa, Americas, Sub-Saharan Africa and Former Soviet Union. The G7 and BRICS countries are labelled as well as some of the outlier countries. The SDG Index and SWB have a highly significant correlation coefficient of 0.79. The countries with a higher SDG Index score tend to do better in terms of subjective well-being (SWB)—with the Nordic countries topping both rankings. Interestingly, the line of best fit is not linear but quadratic indicating that a higher SDG Index score correlates more strongly with higher SWB at higher levels of the SDG Index. Thus, sustainable development results in increasing marginal returns to human well-being.

Sustainable development and subjective well-being, a scatterplot for the overall SDGI score (mean of total SDG score, where all goals are weighted equally) and SWB score for all countries in the data set. This scatterplot was produced using matplotlib package (version 3.2.1) in python: https://matplotlib.org .

In the online Supplementary Information section, we show that the quadratic fit is statistically superior compared to a pure linear fit (see Table S1 ). This is also the case for higher-powered models as borne out when applying the Bayesian information criterion and Akaike information criterion to test the relative quality of model fits (see Table  S2 ). As countries become more developed, a higher SDG Index score is associated with an ever higher SWB score. This suggests that economic activity is more important for well-being at lowers levels of economic development. As countries become richer the well-being of their citizens stagnates unless further economic growth is more sustainable by, for example, addressing inequality and improving environmental quality. The notion of increasing marginal returns to sustainable development contrasts starkly with the decreasing marginal returns that are typically observed when mapping well-being onto GDP per capita 20 .

Our measure of SWB is an evaluative measure of well-being and the survey responses may differ from emotional measures of well-being, especially when looked at in relation to economic measures such as income and development. As such, in the Supplementary Information section we also report on the relationship between the SDG Index and measures of emotional well-being (see Figure S1 and Figure  S2 ). The Gallup World Poll includes measures of positive emotions such as “enjoyment” and “smile or laugh” as well as negative emotions such as “worry”, “sadness”, “stress”, and “anger”. Correlating an index of positive emotional experiences with the SDG Index scores leads to a correlation coefficient of 0.27—while statistically significant, this indicates a much weaker empirical link between achieving the SDGs and the experience of positive emotions as compared to life evaluations already examined. This is less the case for an index of negative emotional experiences, for which we obtain a correlation coefficient that is − 0.57 suggesting that countries that are not doing well in terms of the SDGs also tend to have populations that are experiencing more negative emotions. In general, these results are in line with the notion that evaluative measures correlate more strongly with economic measures such as income, development, and inequality than emotional measures of well-being 21 , 22 .

In the Supplementary Information section we list the countries that deviate most from the trend line (see Table  S3 ). The countries significantly above the line of best fit clearly punch above their weight in terms of happiness relative to where the model would expect these countries to be given their scores on the SDG Index, with the reverse being true for those below the line of best fit. These empirical observations indicate that there are a number of aspects that drive human well-being that are not fully captured by the SDGs.

How does each SDG relate to well-being?

In Table  1 we report on how each SDG correlates with well-being both globally and regionally. As expected from the aforementioned general results, we find that at the global level most SDGs correlate strongly and positively with higher well-being. At the same time, we discover much heterogeneity in how some of the SDGs relate to well-being. In fact, we find SDGs 14 (Life below water), 15 (Life on land), and 17 (Partnerships for the goals) to be generally insignificant. Importantly, we find that SDGs 12 (Responsible consumption and production) and 13 (Climate action) are significantly negatively correlated with human well-being.

When looking at the relationship between SDGs and well-being by region we detect further levels of heterogeneity in how individual SDGs relate to well-being in different contexts. It is, however, important to note that considering these data by region reduces the number of observations and therefore both the precision of the coefficient and the statistical power to report significant differences. As Fig.  1 revealed visually, there is a stronger link between the SDG Index and well-being at higher levels of economic development. In Table  1 we indeed find that the general correlation between the SDGs and well-being is considerably lower in regions with mostly developing nations. In fact, only for Europe, Asia, and the Americas do we pick up a strong statistically significant correlation between the SDG Index and well-being. When looking at the SDGs individually, we pick up even more variation in how some SDGs are more strongly correlated than others with well-being. Some noteworthy regional results include (1) the important role of SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) for countries in the former Soviet Union; (2) the relative importance of SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure) for nations in Europe and the MENA region; and (3) SDG 10 (reducing inequality) is strongly correlated with well-being for the European nations. These regional correlations need to be taken with due caution given the relatively low number of observations available but, taken together, Table  1 paints a vivid picture of the varied and complex ways in which the SDGs relate to human well-being and how these pathways are highly context specific.

Are there trade-offs between the SDGs and human well-being?

Table  1 reveals that SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) and SDG 13 (climate action) have, in fact, strong negative correlations with self-reported measures of human well-being. Moreover, these negative correlations appear to hold for each one of the world’s regions and therefore merit more academic and policy attention.

SDG12 aims to ensure responsible consumption and production patterns, in order to prevent the over-extraction and degradation of environmental resources. The indicators underlying SDG12 measure the per capita material footprint of each country, accounting for municipal solid waste (kg/year/capita), E-waste generated (kg/capita), production-based SO 2 emissions (kg/capita), imported SO 2 emissions (kg/capita), nitrogen production footprint (kg/capita), net imported emissions of reactive nitrogen (kg/capita), non-recycled municipal solid waste (MSW in kg/person/year times recycling rate) 10 . Fig.  2 shows the negative correlation between achieving SDG 12 and subjective well-being. It suggests that countries which have a smaller per capita material footprint—and are therefore performing well on SDG12—are associated with lower levels of SWB. Countries like Canada, meanwhile, have a high material footprint and score badly on SDG12 but perform well in terms of SWB. The relationship between countries’ well-being and material footprint may well be explained by economic development, as countries with higher GDPs tend to produce and consume more, which is usually associated with higher living standards. However, as reported in Table  2 , when we control for the general level of economic development, SDG12 continues to correlate negatively with SWB, suggesting that material consumption itself is an important factor explaining this negative correlation. This analysis therefore suggests that advancing on responsible consumption and production may result in a trade-off in terms of average self-reported well-being, at least in the short run. However, it is important to note the handful of countries in the top right-hand corner of Fig.  2 (listed in Supplementary Table S4 online) which run counter to this trend. For example, Costa Rica scores highly in terms of SWB whilst also scoring well on SDG12, suggesting that it is in fact possible to advance human well-being at moderate consumption levels.

Responsible consumption and production (SDG12) and subjective well-being, a scatterplot for SDG12 score and SWB score for all countries in the data set. This scatterplot was produced using matplotlib package (version 3.2.1) in python: https://matplotlib.org .

SDG 13 asks that countries take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts by curbing emissions. It measures countries’ energy-related CO 2 emissions per capita (tCO 2 /capita), imported CO 2 emissions, technology adjusted (tCO 2 /capita), people affected by climate-related disasters (per 100,000 population), CO 2 emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports (kg/capita), effective carbon rate from all non-road energy, excluding emissions from biomass (€/tCO 2 ) 10 . In general, countries that have lower emissions—and are therefore performing well on SDG13—tend to have lower levels of subjective well-being. As was the case with SDG 12, countries that are more economically developed tend to pollute more while also having higher well-being. In contrast with SDG12, however, we find that accounting for the general level of economic development turns a negative correlation into an insignificant one as reported in Table  2 . This suggests that the underlying measures for climate action are strongly correlated with the level of economic development in the first place which, in turn, drives the relationship with well-being. Again, there are a handful of countries in the top right of Fig.  3 (listed in Supplementary Table S5 online), which appear to be resolving the trade-off, performing well on SDG13 whilst maintaining high levels of SWB.

Climate action (SDG13) and subjective well-being, a scatterplot for SDG13 score and SWB score for all countries in the data set. This scatterplot was produced using matplotlib package (version 3.2.1) in python: https://matplotlib.org .

Variance decomposition analysis of the SDGs in relation to well-being

In this section, we apply variance decomposition to explore the relative importance of each SDG in explaining the variance in well-being between countries. This method, called “dominance analysis”, investigates the relative contribution to the variance explained in well-being (R 2 ) for a given set of predictors—in this case the 17 SDGs 11 .

Figure  4 presents the results of the variance decomposition and suggests large differences in how each SDG contributes to explaining the variance in well-being between countries. This figure paints a picture that aligns closely with the correlation coefficients reported in Table  1 . SDGs 10, 14, 15 and 17 would appear to contribute negligibly to explaining variation in well-being across the globe. On the other hand, the greatest explanatory power seems to lie with SDGs 3, 8, 9, and 12. SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), and SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) each explain 10% or more of the variance. It is important to note, of course, that SDG 12 (as well as SDG 13) are negatively correlated with well-being, as was shown earlier on in Table  1 .

Relative importance of SDGs in explaining the variance in subjective well-being between countries.

Variance decomposition analysis of regional SDG groups in relation to well-being

In these analyses, we group the SDGs into Economic (4, 8, 9), Social (1, 5, 10), Health (3), Law (16), and Environmental goals (2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). Figure  5 first shows the results for how well these SDG groups explain the variance between all countries. In Fig.  6 we show the results by region. The general takeaway from the regional variance decomposition analyses is that there is much regional heterogeneity hidden behind a global analysis, with the regional context driving which SDGs are most important in explaining the variance in well-being between countries in the region. In Europe (N = 33), and especially in the countries of the former Soviet Union (N = 15), we find the great importance of the Economic SDGs in explaining regional variation in well-being. In Asia (N = 23) we find a fairly balanced role for the Economic, Law, Social, and Health SDG groups in explaining regional differences in well-being. In the Americas (N = 23) we find that Health plays the most important role in driving regional variation in well-being. The results for Sub-Saharan Africa (N = 38) point towards the Social SDGs playing the key role in explaining regional differences. For the countries in the MENA region (N = 17) we find a more balanced picture with the Health and Economic SDGs driving most of the variation, but an important role as well for the Social, Law, and Environmental SDGs.

Relative importance of SDG groups in explaining the variance in subjective well-being between countries.

Relative importance of SDG groups in explaining regional subjective well-being variance.

This paper has studied the empirical relationship between the Sustainable Development Goals and subjective well-being using data from the SDG Index and the Gallup World Poll. We find a strong correlation between achieving sustainable development and self-reported measures of well-being. Moreover, our analyses indicate that there are increasing marginal returns to sustainable development in terms of well-being.

While most SDGs are positively correlated with well-being, our analysis reveals that SDG12 (responsible consumption and production) and SDG13 (climate action) are negatively correlated with SWB 23 . These findings are perhaps unsurprising: the world economy has long relied on economic growth and the consumption of natural resources to generate human welfare at the expense of environmental sustainability 3 , 24 . Today, however, it is increasingly clear that if we are to avoid ecological collapse, we must bring our consumption of natural and material resources within ecological limits 25 , 26 . This transformation is captured by SDG12 and SDG13; it will involve real reductions in emissions, and quantitative as well as qualitative changes to consumption and production patterns 27 . In particular, high income countries must reduce their ecological footprint to allow for increased consumption in economically developing countries, where it is necessary for meeting basic needs 23 , 28 . This is not an easy task given that our growth-driven economic system is reliant on ever-increasing consumption and production to provide employment and support livelihoods 29 . Thus, under current structures, advancing on SDG12 and SDG13 could have serious socio-economic consequences and, as such, negatively impact well-being levels, particularly those of the most vulnerable 27 . Given that lowering well-being erodes support for incumbent governments, this makes such policies even more difficult to implement 13 . More cautious policies are therefore needed to ensure that progress towards SDG12 and SDG13 also safeguards livelihoods and well-being 30 , 31 .

Nevertheless, environmental stewardship does not necessarily entail reductions in well-being. Varied research has shown the importance of environmental integrity for human well-being: for instance, subjective well-being is negatively influenced by poor air quality 32 ; people are willing to pay for observably cleaner air 33 ; and there is evidence to suggest that being exposed to nature improves mental health 34 . Furthermore, as we have shown elsewhere there is a strong positive correlation between SWB and the Environmental Protection Indicator (a measure which is much wider in scope than the environmentally-oriented SDGs, covering a broad range of issues such as biodiversity and eco-systems, climate and energy, air pollution, water resources, agriculture, heavy metals, water and sanitation, and air quality) 35 . These research insights indicate that well-being is correlated with the long-term outcomes of environmental policies, even if it is not necessarily positively correlated with the short-run efforts required of such policies.

The challenge for policy-makers is thus to resolve the short-term trade-off by de-coupling human well-being improvements from the consumption of natural resources and GHG emissions 36 . A recent report by the OECD attempts to address this challenge by proposing climate change mitigation through a well-being lens, putting people at the centre of climate action 37 . The outlier countries highlighted in our analysis (see Supplementary Table S4 and S5 online) that are performing well on SDG12 and SDG13, whilst also achieving high levels of well-being, indicate that there might be pathways to improving well-being that do not hinder environmental sustainability 38 , 39 . These countries represent a proportional mix of relatively large and small countries across the world. For example, Germany has invested heavily in renewable energy infrastructure 40 , providing ‘green jobs’ while simultaneously reducing emissions. The combination of carbon taxes and incentives for renewable energy, combined with ambitious social policy, has allowed the Nordic countries to transition away from fossil fuels, without punishing low-income families with higher energy bills 41 , 42 . Equally, Costa Rica is among the top countries for investment in new renewable power and fuels relative to GDP, and has committed to achieving carbon neutrality starting from 2021 43 . It thus offers an alternative model for developing countries to avoid the Western carbon-intensive development path 44 . Interestingly, many Latin American countries with warmer climates and a lower propensity to engage in international trade 36 perform strongly in terms of self-reported well-being whilst also scoring highly in terms of SDG12 (sustainable consumption and production), supporting the notion that human well-being decouples from environmental impact beyond minimum levels of consumption 39 . More research is needed to better understand the development trajectories of these countries and the policy mechanisms which allow for synergies between well-being and ecological sustainability 36 . Policies such as investment in public services to moderate private consumption 27 and harnessing productivity gains to reduce working hours 45 have been proposed. There is also increasing evidence from sustainable cities that supports the notion that it is possible to mitigate environmental issues and simultaneously improve quality of life 46 .

Trade-offs between the SDGs and SWB can also arise as a result of interactions between different SDGs. In particular, SDGs 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 continue to have negative trade-offs and non-associations with other SDGs 47 . The highly positive links we identified between goals 11 and 16 and human well-being may possibly compensate for these intra-SDG trade-offs, but policy-makers may find pursuing SDGs 13, 14, and 17 more difficult due to the negative or insignificant correlation with the well-being of current generations. Needless to say, however, that the urgency of climate change does require action to ensure the well-being of future generations 48 , 49 .

Regional analyses have revealed that what accounts for human well-being varies greatly according to regional and socio-economic context; policy efforts must therefore be differentiated. For example, we find that while in Europe reducing inequalities significantly contributes to well-being, poverty reduction is more important in sub-Saharan Africa. These findings complement a recent study of SDG interactions, which finds poverty alleviation in low-income countries and reducing inequalities in high-income countries to have compounded positive effects on all SDGs 50 , thus helping to support the prioritization of these SDGs according to region. Our findings confirm that general analyses often hide important heterogeneity; moreover, we recognise that the picture becomes even more nuanced at the local level, which is increasingly the site where sustainable development policy is implemented 51 . Importing policy models or ‘best practices’ from elsewhere without a deep understanding of the local context can often obscure effective policy-making on sustainable development issues 52 . As explored in the policy mobilities literature, there is often a mismatch between local governance structures and top-down frameworks like the SDGs which can hinder the overall success of such agendas 53 . Where policies are too insensitive to specific local variations, the goals of sustainable development can be squandered. Therefore, a more comprehensive understanding of how the SDGs can be implemented at the local level is critical 54 in order to advance the 2030 agenda such that both people and planet can thrive.

Our analysis is of course limited by data gaps for several SDG indicators, we therefore emphasize the need for increased transparency and co-operation from governments. Regional analyses are limited by the relatively low number of observations available. It is also important to reiterate that variance decomposition analyses are constrained by their methods and the number of observations. As such, these results are meant to be seen as cautious exploration of large-scale trends that are correlational in nature and thus open to potential reverse causality and omitted variable bias. Our aim here is to stimulate thinking and further research on how the SDGs relate to human well-being—and to show that general analyses may hide important heterogeneity when looking at individual SDGs and in the context of different regions. We recognize that in addition to the macro-level statistical analysis conducted here, more research and careful qualitative analysis is needed to understand local complexities and how they interact with the SDG framework.

We have studied the link between the SDGs and SWB of current generations. Future research should investigate the extent to which self-reported SWB metrics account for the well-being of future generations. This is especially relevant when considering SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) and SDG 13 (climate policy). Implementing these policies requires intergenerational reciprocity, the idea that we must act on the behalf of future generations, which has in turn been shown to depend on the behavior of previous generations 55 . This work also does not address international dynamics. The sustainable development of a country may come at a cost to other countries, or the actions of countries may influence the well-being in others 56 . Furthermore, the model of linking SDGs with well-being assumes only direct relationships, whereas recent work shows that addressing SDGs have knock-on effects for other SDGs 57 .

A potential dynamic that is worthwhile highlighting is the extent to which the well-being of populations may itself exert influence on their country’s approach to development. Changes in well-being have been documented to have wide-ranging effects on economic, social, and health outcomes 58 . Given these objective benefits of subjective well-being there is an urgent need to combine the SDG and SWB research and policy agendas to generate solutions that advance human well-being, without compromising the environmental integrity of our planet.

Data availability

Data from the SDG index is freely available and can be downloaded from www.sdgindex.org . The Gallup World Poll data is not freely available however the data used in this analysis is made available in the online appendix for the World Happiness Report from https://worldhappiness.report .

Hopwood, B., Mellor, M. & O’Brien, G. Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustain. Dev. 13 , 38–52 (2005).

Google Scholar  

World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987).

Krueger, R. & Gibbs, D. The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe (Guilford Press, New York, 2007).

United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015).

Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A. & Fitoussi, J.-P. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (2009).

OECD. For Good Measure: Advancing Research on Well-being Metrics Beyond GDP (OECD Publishing, Paris, 2018).

Frijters, P., Clark, A. E., Krekel, C. & Layard, R. A happy choice: wellbeing as the goal of government. Behav. Public Policy https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.39 (2020).

Article   Google Scholar  

Benjamin, D. J., Cooper, K. B., Heffetz, O. & Kimball, M. S. Self-reported wellbeing indicators are a valuable complement to traditional economic indicators but aren’t yet ready to compete with them. Behav. Public Policy https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3463478 (2019).

O'Donnell, G., Deaton, A., Halpern D., Durand, M. & Layard. R. Wellbeing and Policy Report (Legatum Institute, 2014).

Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G. & Fuller, G. Sustainable Development Report 2019 (Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2019).

Azen, R. & Budescu, D. V. The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychol. Methods 8 , 129–148 (2003).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Patel, V. et al. The Lancet Commission on global mental health and sustainable development. Lancet 392 , 1553–1598 (2018).

Ward, G. Happiness and voting: evidence from four decades of elections in Europe. Am. J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12492 (2019).

Bennett, N. J. et al. Towards a sustainable and equitable blue economy. Nat. Sustain. 2 , 991–993 (2019).

Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M., Jato-Espino, D. & Castro-Fresno, D. Is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) index an adequate framework to measure the progress of the 2030 agenda?. Sustain. Dev. 26 , 663–671 (2018).

Tracking progress on the SDGs. Nat. Sustain. 1, 377. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0131-z (2018)

Helliwell, J., Layard, R., Sachs, J. & De Neve, J.-E. World Happiness Report 2020 (Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2020).

Helliwell, J. Measuring and using happiness to support public policies. NBER Working Paper 26529 . https://www.nber.org/papers/w26529 (2019).

Oswald, A. J. & Wu, S. Objective confirmation of subjective measures of human well-being: evidence from the U.S.A.. Science 327 , 576–579 (2010).

ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Easterlin, R. A., McVey, L. A., Switek, M., Sawanfa, O. & Zweig, J. S. The happiness-income paradox revisited. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 , 22463–22468 (2010).

Kahneman, D. & Deaton, A. High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 , 16489–16493 (2010).

Powdthavee, N., Burkhauser, R. V. & De Neve, J.-E. Top incomes and human well-being: evidence from the Gallup World Poll. J. Econ. Psychol. 62 , 246–257 (2017).

O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F. & Steinberger, J. K. A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 1 , 88–95 (2018).

Dietz, T., Rosa, E. A. & York, R. Environmentally efficient well-being: rethinking sustainability as the relationship between human well-being and environmental impacts. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 16 , 114–123 (2009).

IPCC. Global warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty (2018).

Meadows, D. H., Randers, J. & Meadows, D. L. The Limits to Growth: the 30-Year Update (Universe Books, New York, 2004).

Bengtsson, M., Alfredsson, E., Cohen, M., Lorek, S. & Schroeder, P. Transforming systems of consumption and production for achieving the sustainable development goals: moving beyond efficiency. Sustain. Sci. 13 , 1533–1547 (2018).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Scherer, L. et al. Trade-offs between social and environmental sustainable development goals. Environ. Sci. Policy 90 , 65–72 (2018).

Jackson, T. Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet (Earthscan, London, 2009).

McCauley, D. & Heffron, R. Just transition: integrating climate, energy and environmental justice. Energy Policy 119 , 1–7 (2018).

Alves, M. W. F. M. & Mariano, E. B. Climate justice and human development: a systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 202 , 360–375 (2018).

Levinson, A. Valuing public goods using happiness data: the case of air quality. J. Public Econ. 96 , 869–880 (2012).

Luechinger, S. Valuing air quality using the life satisfaction approach. Econ. J. 119 , 482–515 (2009).

Guite, H. F., Clark, C. & Ackrill, G. The impact of the physical and urban environment on mental well-being. Public Health 120 , 1117–1126 (2006).

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

De Neve, J.-E. & Sachs, J. Sustainable development and human well-being. In World Happiness Report 2020 (eds Helliwell, J. et al. ) (Sustainable Development Solutions Network, New York, 2020).

Roberts, J. T. et al. Four agendas for research and policy on emissions mitigation and well-being. Glob. Sustain. 3 , e3 (2020).

OECD. Accelerating Climate Action: Refocusing Policies Through a Well-being Lens (OECD Publishing, Paris, 2019).

Knight, K. W. & Rosa, E. A. The environmental efficiency of well-being: a cross-national analysis. Soc. Sci. Res. 40 , 931–949 (2011).

Steinberger, J. K. & Roberts, J. T. From constraint to sufficiency: the decoupling of energy and carbon from human needs, 1975–2005. Ecol. Econ. 70 , 425–433 (2010).

Lehr, U., Nitsch, J., Kratzat, M., Lutz, C. & Edler, D. Renewable energy and employment in Germany. Energy Policy 36 , 108–117 (2008).

Nordic Council of Ministers. Nordic Climate Policy—A Case Study on Efficient Policy Measures . 10.6027/NA2014-906 (2014)

Martela, F., Greve, B., Rothstein, B. & Saari, J. The Nordic exceptionalism: what explains why the Nordic Countries are constantly among the happiest in the world. In World Happiness Report 2020 (eds Helliwell, J. et al. ) (Sustainable Development Solutions Network, New York, 2020).

OECD. Climate Change Mitigation: Policies and Progress (OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015).

Lamb, W. F. Which countries avoid carbon-intensive development?. J. Clean. Prod. 131 , 523–533 (2016).

Knight, K. W., Rosa, E. A. & Schor, J. B. Could working less reduce pressures on the environment? A cross-national panel analysis of OECD countries, 1970–2007. Glob. Environ. Change 23 , 691–700 (2013).

Bulkeley, H. Cities and Climate Change (Routledge, Abingdon, 2013).

Kroll, C., Warchold, A. & Pradhan, P. Sustainable development goals (SDGs): are we successful in turning trade-offs into synergies?. Palgrave Commun. 5 , 140 (2019).

Stern, N. H. Why Are We Waiting? The Logic, Urgency, and Promise of Tackling Climate Change (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2015).

Stern, N. Public economics as if time matters: climate change and the dynamics of policy. J. Public Econ. 162 , 4–17 (2018).

Lusseau, D. & Mancini, F. Income-based variation in sustainable development goal interaction networks. Nat. Sustain. 2 , 242–247 (2019).

Carr, C. et al. Raising sustainability/Mobilising sustainability: why European sustainable urban development initiatives are slow to materialise/Territorial cohesion as a vehicle of sustainability/Sustainable urban development and the challenge of global air transport nodes and spatial integration/Distorted density: where developers and non-governmental organizations on sustainable urban development agree/Overcoming politics with markets? The co-production of sustainable development in urban and regional planning. Plan. Theory Pract. 16 , 99–125 (2015).

Temenos, C. & McCann, E. The local politics of policy mobility: learning, persuasion, and the production of a municipal sustainability fix. Environ. Plan. Econ. Space 44 , 1389–1406 (2012).

Carr, C. Discourse yes, implementation maybe: an immobility and paralysis of sustainable development policy. Eur. Plan. Stud. 22 , 1824–1840 (2014).

McLean, B. L. & Borén, T. Barriers to implementing sustainability locally: a case study of policy immobilities. Local Environ. 20 , 1489–1506 (2015).

Wade-Benzoni, K. A. A golden rule over time: reciprocity in intergenerational allocation decisions. Acad. Manag. J. 45 , 1011–1028 (2002).

Schmidt-Traub, G., Moff, H. & Bernlöhr, M. International Spillovers and the Sustainable Development Goals (Sustainable Development Solutions Network, New York, 2019).

Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Rybski, D., Lucht, W. & Kropp, J. P. A systematic study of sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Earths Future 5 , 1169–1179 (2017).

ADS   Google Scholar  

De Neve, J.-E., Diener, E., Tay, L. & Xuereb, C. The objective benefits of subjective well-being. In World Happiness Report 2013 (eds Helliwell, J. et al. ) (Sustainable Development Solution Network, New York, 2013).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article builds on work done for a chapter published in the World Happiness Report 2020 and reproduces some material from that chapter. We are grateful to Sidharth Bhushan, Hedda Roberts, and Pekka Vuorenlehto for outstanding research assistance. We thank Guillaume Lafortune and Grayson Fuller at the Sustainable Development Solutions Network for guidance on the SDG Index data. The Gallup World Poll data is generously made available by The Gallup Organization. We also acknowledge very helpful comments from John Helliwell, Richard Layard, Andrew Oswald, Steve Bond, Tyler VanderWeele, and participants at seminar meetings of the Wellbeing Research Centre at Oxford.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wellbeing Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Jan-Emmanuel De Neve

Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Centre for Sustainable Development, Columbia University, New York, USA

Jeffrey D. Sachs

Sustainable Development Solutions Network, New York, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J.-E.D.N. provided the initial idea for this paper. J-E.D.N. and J.D.S. designed the research. J-E.D.N. coordinated the analyses and writing and prepared the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan-Emmanuel De Neve .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

De Neve, JE., Sachs, J.D. The SDGs and human well-being: a global analysis of synergies, trade-offs, and regional differences. Sci Rep 10 , 15113 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71916-9

Download citation

Received : 26 February 2020

Accepted : 21 August 2020

Published : 15 September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71916-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Assessing the sustainability of the european green deal and its interlin kages with the sdgs.

• Phoebe Koundouri
• Angelos Alamanos
• Stathis Devves

npj Climate Action (2024)

How does mindfulness relate to sustainable attitude and behavior? The role of possible mediators

• Petra Jansen
• Martina Rahe
• Fabian Wolff

Current Psychology (2024)

Strategies for developing sustainable communities in higher education institutions

• Alberto Biancardi
• Annarita Colasante
• Antonio Felice Uricchio

Scientific Reports (2023)

Assessing the United Nations sustainable development goals from the inclusive wealth perspective

• Yogi Sugiawan
• Robi Kurniawan
• Shunsuke Managi

A comparison of economic, environmental and social performance of European countries: a sustainable development goal index

• Denise Anselmi
• Idiano D’Adamo
• Ginevra Virginia Lombardi

Environment, Development and Sustainability (2023)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

We want to hear from you! Let us know what you think about our website.

interstitialRedirectModalTitle

interstitialRedirectModalMessage

• Show search

Perspectives

The Science of Sustainability

Can a unified path for development and conservation lead to a better future?

October 13, 2018

• A False Choice
• Two Paths to 2050
• What's Possible
• The Way Forward
• Engage With Us

The Cerrado may not have the same name recognition as the Amazon , but this vast tropical savannah in Brazil has much in common with that perhaps better-known destination. The Cerrado is also a global biodiversity hotspot, home to thousands of species only found there, and it is also a critical area in the fight against climate change, acting as a large carbon pool.

But Brazil is one of the two largest soy producers in the world—the crop is one of the country’s most important commodities and a staple in global food supplies—and that success is placing the Cerrado in precarious decline. To date, around 46% of the Cerrado has been deforested or converted for agriculture.

Producing more soy doesn’t have to mean converting more native habitat, however. A new spatial data tool is helping identify the best places to expand soy without further encroachment on the native landscapes of the Cerrado. And with traders and bankers working together to offer preferable financing to farmers who expand onto already-converted land, Brazil can continue to produce this important crop, while protecting native habitat and providing more financial stability for farmers.

The Cerrado is just one region of a vast planet, of course, but these recent efforts to protect it are representative of a new way of thinking about the relationship between conservation and our growing human demands. It is part of an emerging model for cross-sector collaboration that aims to create a world prepared for the sustainability challenges ahead.

Is this world possible? Here, we present a new science-based view that says “Yes”—but it will require new forms of collaboration across traditionally disconnected sectors, and on a near unprecedented scale.

Download a PDF version of this feature. Click to see translated versions of this page.

I.  A False Choice

Many assume that economic interests and environmental interests are in conflict. But new research makes the case that this perception of development vs. conservation is not just unnecessary but actively counterproductive to both ends. Achieving a sustainable future will be dependent on our ability to secure both thriving human communities and abundant and healthy natural ecosystems.

The Nature Conservancy partnered with the University of Minnesota and 11 other organizations to ask whether it is possible to achieve a future where the needs of both people and nature are advanced. Can we actually meet people’s needs for food, water and energy while doing more to protect nature? 

The perception of development vs. conservation is not just unnecessary, but actively counterproductive to both ends.

To answer this question, we compared what the world will look like in 2050 if economic and human development progress in a “business-as-usual” fashion and what it would look like if instead we join forces to implement a “sustainable” path with a series of fair-minded and technologically viable solutions to the challenges that lie ahead.

In both options, we used leading projections of population growth and gross domestic product to estimate how demand for food, energy and water will evolve between 2010 and 2050. Under business-as-usual, we played out existing expectations and trends in how those changes will impact land use, water use, air quality, climate, protected habitat areas and ocean fisheries. In the more sustainable scenario, we proposed changes to how and where food and energy are produced, asking if these adjustments could result in better outcomes for the same elements of human well-being and nature. Our full findings are described in a peer-reviewed paper— “An Attainable Global Vision for Conservation and Human Well-Being” —published in  Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment .

These scenarios let us ask, can we do better? Can we design a future that meets people’s needs without further degrading nature in the process?

Our answer is “yes,” but it comes with several big “ifs.” There is a path to get there, but matters are urgent—if we want to accomplish these goals by mid-century, we’ll have to dramatically ramp up our efforts now. The next decade is critical.

Furthermore, changing course in the next ten years will require global collaboration on a scale not seen perhaps since World War II. The widely held impression that economic and environmental goals are mutually exclusive has contributed to a lack of connection among key societal constituencies best equipped to solve interconnected problems—namely, the public health, development, financial and conservation communities. This has to change.

The good news is that protecting nature and providing water, food and energy to a growing world do not have to be either-or propositions. Our view, instead, calls for smart energy, water, air, health and ecosystem initiatives that balance the needs of economic growth and resource conservation equally. Rather than a zero-sum game, these elements are balanced sides of an equation, revealing the path to a future where people and nature thrive together.

II. Two Paths to 2050

This vision is not a wholesale departure from what others have offered. A number of prominent scientists and organizations have put forward important and thoughtful views for a sustainable future; but often such plans consider the needs of people and nature in isolation from one another, use analyses confined to limited sectors or geographies, or assume that some hard tradeoffs must be made, such as slowing global population growth, taking a reduction in GDP growth or shifting diets off of meat. Our new research considers global economic development and conservation needs together, more holistically, in order to find a sustainable path forward.

What could a different future look like? We’ve used as our standard the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 measures for “a world where all people are fed, healthy, employed, educated, empowered and thriving, but not at the expense of other life on Earth.” Our analysis directly aligns with ten of those goals. Using the SDGs as our guideposts, we imagine a world in 2050 that looks very different than the one today—and drastically different from the one we will face if we continue in business-as-usual fashion.

A sustainable future is possible.

To create our assessment of business-as-usual versus a more sustainable path, we looked at 14 measurements including temperature change, carbon dioxide levels, air pollution, water consumption, food and energy footprints, and protected areas.

Over the next 30 years, we know we’ll face rapid population growth and greater pressures on our natural resources. The statistics are sobering—with 9.7 billion people on the planet by 2050, we can expect a 54 percent increase in global food demand and 56 percent increase in energy demand. While meetings these growing demands and achieving sustainability is possible, it is helpful to scrutinize where the status quo will get us.

The World Health Organization, World Economic Forum and other leading global development organizations now say that air pollution and water scarcity—environmental challenges—are among the biggest dangers to human health and prosperity. And our business-as-usual analysis makes clear what many already fear: that human development based on the same practices we use today will not prepare us for a world with nearly 10 billion people.

To put it simply, if we stay on today’s current path, we risk being trapped in an intensifying cycle of scarcity—our growth opportunities severely capped and our natural landscapes severely degraded. Under this business-as-usual scenario, we can expect global temperature to increase 3.2°C; worsened air pollution affecting 4.9 billion more people; overfishing of 84 percent of fish stocks; and greater water stress affecting 2.75 billion people. Habitat loss continues, leaving less than 50 percent of native grasslands and several types of forests intact.

However, if we make changes in where and how we meet food, water and energy demands for the same growing global population and wealth, the picture can look markedly different by mid-century. This “sustainability” path includes global temperature increase limited to 1.6°C—meeting Paris Climate Accord goals—zero overfishing with greater fisheries yields, a 90 percent drop in exposure to dangerous air pollution, and fewer water-stressed people, rivers and agricultural fields. These goals can be met while natural habitats extend both inside and outside protected areas. All signatory countries to the Aichi Targets meet habitat protection goals, and more than 50 percent of all ecoregions’ extents remain unconverted, except temperate grasslands (of which over 50 percent are already converted today).

Behind the Science

Discover how TNC and its partners developed the models for 2050.

III. What's Possible

Achieving this sustainable future for people and nature is possible with existing and expected technology and consumption, but only with major shifts in production patterns. Making these shifts will require overcoming substantial economic, social and political challenges. In short, it is not likely that the biophysical limits of the planet will determine our future, but rather our willingness to think and act differently by putting economic development and the environment on equal footing as central parts of the same equation.

Climate, Energy and Air Quality

Perhaps the most pressing need for change is in energy use. In order to both meet increased energy demand and keep the climate within safe boundaries, we’ll need to alter the way we produce energy, curtailing emissions of carbon and other harmful chemicals.

Under a business-as-usual scenario, fossil fuels will still claim a 76 percent share of total energy in 2050. A more sustainable approach would reduce that share to 13 percent by 2050. While this is a sharp change, it is necessary to stanch the flow of harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The reduction in carbon-based energy could be offset by increasing the share of energy from renewable sources to 54 percent and increasing nuclear energy to one third of total energy output—delivering a total of almost 85 percent of the world’s energy demand from non-fossil-fuel sources.

Additionally, we will only achieve the full extent of reduced climate impacts if we draw down existing carbon from the atmosphere. This can be done through greater investment in carbon capture and storage efforts, including natural climate solutions—land management strategies such as avoiding forest loss, reforestation, investments in soil health and coastal ecosystem restoration.

The net benefit of these energy redistribution efforts is twofold. First, they lower the rate at which greenhouse gases are flowing into the air—taking atmospheric carbon projections down to 442 parts per million, compared to business-as-usual estimates that put the level closer to 520 ppm.

Second, these energy source shifts would create a marked decline in particulate air pollution. Our models show that the higher fossil fuel use in the business-as-usual scenario is likely to expose half the people on the planet to poorer air quality by 2050. Under the sustainable scenario, that figure drops to just 7 percent of the world’s inhabitants, thanks to lower particulate emissions from renewable and nuclear energy sources.

Case Studies: 

• Forests That Fight Climate Change: Brazil’s Serra da Mantiqueira region demonstrates how reforestation can tackle climate change, improve water supplies, and increase incomes in rural communities.  Learn More
• Can Trees Be a Prescription for Urban Health?:  Conservationists, community organizations and public health researchers joined forces to plant trees in Louisville, Kentucky and monitor their impact on air quality and residents’ health.  Learn More

Food, Habitat and City Growth

Meeting the sustainable targets we propose requires a second front on land to shift how we use available real estate and where we choose to conduct necessary activities. Overall, the changes we include in our more sustainable view allow the world to meet global food, water and energy demands with no additional conversion of natural habitat for those needs—an outcome that is not possible under business as usual.

While transitioning away from fossil fuels is essential to meet climate goals, new renewable energy infrastructure siting will present land-use challenges. Renewable energy production takes up space, and if not sited well it can cause its own negative impacts on nature and its services to people. In our more sustainable path, we address this challenge by preferencing the use of already converted land for renewables development, lessening the impact of new wind and solar on natural habitat. We also exclude expansion of biofuels, as they are known to require extensive land area to produce, causing conflicts with natural habitat and food security.

Perhaps most encouraging, we show that it is possible to meet future food demands on less agricultural land than is used today. Notably, our scenario keeps the mix of crops in each growing region the same, so as not to disrupt farmers’ cultures, technologies, capacity or existing crop knowledge. Instead, we propose moving which crops are grown where within growing regions, putting more “thirsty” crops in areas with more water, and matching the nutrient needs of various crops to the soils available.

Unlike some projections used by others, for this scenario we left diet expectations alone, matching meat consumption with business-as-usual expectations. If we were able to reduce meat consumption, especially by middle- and high-income countries where nutritional needs are met, reducing future agricultural land, water and pollution footprints would be even easier.

Meanwhile, on the land protection front, our analysis is guided by the Convention on Biological Diversity, the leading global platform most countries have signed. Each signatory country has agreed to protect up to 17 percent of each habitat type within its borders. While many countries will fall short of this goal under business as usual, it can be achieved in our more sustainable option.

By making changes in food, water and energy use, we can better protect nearly all habitat types.

We acknowledge 17 percent is an imperfect number, and many believe more natural habitat is needed to allow the world’s biodiversity to thrive. Looking beyond protected areas, we see additional differences in the possible futures we face. Our more sustainable option retains 577 million hectares more natural habitat than business as usual, much of it outside of protected areas. Conservation has long focused on representation—it is not only important to conserve large areas, but to represent different kinds of habitat. Under business as usual, we will lose more than half of several major habitat types by mid-century, including temperate broadleaf and mixed forests, Mediterranean forest, and temperate grassland. Flooded and tropical grasslands approach this level of loss as well.

But with the proposed shifts in food, water and energy use, we can do better for nearly all habitats in our more sustainable scenario. The one exception is temperate grasslands, a biome that has already lost more than 50 percent of its global extent today. In all, the more sustainable scenario shows a future that would be largely compatible with emerging views that suggest protecting half of the world’s land system.

 Case Study:

• Managing Sprawling Soy:  A partnership between businesses and nonprofit groups in Brazil will help farmers plant soy in the areas where it is has the smallest impact on natural habitats.  Learn More

Drinking Water, River Basins and Fisheries

Water presents a complex set of challenges. Like land, it is both a resource and a habitat. Fresh water resources are dwindling while ocean ecosystems are overburdened by unregulated fishing and pollution. Business-as-usual projections estimate that 2.75 billion people will experience water scarcity by 2050 and 770 water basins will experience water stress. Africa and Central Asia in particular would see fewer water stressed basins in the sustainable scenario.

Changes in energy sources and food production (see above sections) would lead to significant water savings by reducing use of water as a coolant in energy production and by moving crops to areas where they need less irrigation. Thanks to these changes, our more sustainable option for the future would relieve 104 million people and biodiversity in 25 major river basins from likely water stress.

Meanwhile, in the seas, we find an inspiring possibility for fisheries. Continuing business-as-usual fisheries management adds further stress to the oceans and the global food system as more stocks decline, further diminishing the food we rely on from the seas. But more sustainable fisheries management is possible, and our projections using a leading fisheries model shows that adopting sustainable management in all fisheries by mid-century would actually increase yield by over a quarter more than we saw in 2010.

And, while we know that aquaculture is a certain element of the future of fish and food, many questions remain about precisely how this industry will grow, and how it can be shaped to be a low-impact part of the global food system. Given these unknowns, we kept aquaculture growth the same in both our views of the future.

 Case Studies:

• Cities and Farmers Find Common Ground on Water: Smarter agricultural practices in the Kenya’s Upper Tana River Watershed are resulting in better yields for farmers and more reliable water supplies for the city of Nairobi.  Learn More
• Technology Offers a Lifeline for Fish:  A new mobile application being piloted in Indonesia is helping fill a crucial gap in fisheries management—providing accurate data about what species are being caught where.  Learn More

IV.  The Way Forward

This analysis does not represent a panacea for the growing need for economic development across the planet or for the environmental challenges that are ahead. But it does provide an optimistic viewpoint and an integrated picture that can serve as a starting point for discussion.

Our goal is to apply new questions—and ultimately new solutions—to our known problems. We present one of many possible paths to a different future, and we welcome like-minded partners and productive critics to share their perspectives with us. We encourage people from across society to join the conversation, to fill gaps where they exist, and to bring other important considerations to our attention. Most of all, we call on the development (e.g. energy, agriculture, infrastructure), health, and financial communities—among others—to work with us to find new ways of taking action together.

Ultimately, by illustrating a viable pathway to sustainability that serves both the needs of economic and environmental interests—goals that many have long assumed were mutually exclusive—we hope to inspire the global community to engage in the difficult but necessary social, economic and political dialogue that can make a sustainable future a reality.

Protecting nature and providing water, food and energy to the world can no longer be either-or propositions. Nature and human development are both central factors in the same equation. We have at our disposal the cross-sector expertise necessary to make informed decisions for the good of life on our planet, so let’s use it wisely. Our science affirms there is a way.

Join us as we chart a new path to 2050 by helping people and nature thrive—together.

Testimonials

Opportunities to Engage

Designing strategies to address global challenges for people and nature requires integration of diverse bodies of evidence that are now largely segregated. As actors across the health, development and environment sectors pivot to act collectively, they face challenges in finding and interpreting evidence on sector interrelationships, and thus in developing effective evidence-based responses.

Learn more about these emerging coalitions that offer opportunities to engage and connect with shared resources.

Bridge Collaborative

The Bridge Collaborative unites people and organizations in health, development and the environment with the evidence and tools to tackle the world’s most pressing challenges. Learn More

Science for Nature and People Partnership

SNAPP envisions a world where protecting and promoting nature works in concert with sustainable development and improving human well-being. Learn More

Wicked Econ Fest

Wicked Econ Fests are workshops between leading economics, finance, conservation and policy experts to tackle specific, decision-driven challenges. Learn More

Global Insights

Check out our latest thinking and real-world solutions to some of the most complex challenges facing people and the planet today. Explore our Insights

• News, Stories & Speeches
• Get Involved
• Structure and leadership
• Committee of Permanent Representatives
• UN Environment Assembly
• Funding and partnerships
• Policies and strategies
• Evaluation Office
• Secretariats and Conventions

• Asia and the Pacific
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• New York Office
• North America
• Climate action
• Nature action
• Chemicals and pollution action
• Digital Transformations
• Disasters and conflicts
• Environment under review
• Environmental rights and governance
• Extractives
• Fresh Water
• Green economy
• Ocean, seas and coasts
• Resource efficiency
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Youth, education and environment
• Publications & data

Why children and youth hold the key to a sustainable future

In a world where climate change-induced environmental emergencies, such as floods, extreme temperatures and fires, are increasingly becoming the norm, the future can often look uncertain.

This future is particularly uncertain for children, youth and future generations, who experts recognize as the most vulnerable group to the impacts of climate change.

"Children and youth are the most impacted by today's global environmental crisis, and are the most threatened by our current trajectory,” said David Boyd, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment.

As the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Emissions Gap Report 2021: The Heat is On shows, if the current trajectory is to be changed - and the global temperature rise kept well below 2°C, with the target of 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels, in line with the Paris Agreement - the triple threat of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution and waste needs to be tackled.

“We must remember that children’s lives are interlocked with the environment, whatever happens to the environment effects children,” said Jonas Schubert, a human rights officer with Terra des Hommes , a UNEP implementing agency.

UNEP has just released guidelines and principles highlighting the importance of protecting the environment for future generations and ensuring that children have access to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

Children and youth are the most impacted by today's global environmental crisis and are the most threatened by our current trajectory.

The Principles and Policy Guidance on Children’s Rights to a Healthy Environment in the ASEAN Region  focuses on the ten Southeast Asian states that make up the ASEAN region but carries wider ramifications for children globally.

"Every child on Earth is exposed to some combination of the climate crisis, pollution or the decline of biodiversity. Children from poor, vulnerable and marginalized communities face the worst environmental threats," said Boyd.

By endorsing STEP-UP , a Joint Commitment by UN entities, UNEP has committed to promoting the rights of children, youth and future generations to a healthy environment. It has also pledged to involve them in meaningful participation in decision-making at all levels on climate action and climate justice.

UNEP has long championed the rights of youth to a sustainable environment and has increasingly involved them in the process. A child-friendly version of the Principles and Guidance on Children’s Right to a Healthy Environment in the ASEAN Region was recently released in response to one of the ten Principles, which stated that children must have “access to age-appropriate, gender-sensitive, localised and contextualised information.”

In February last year, UNEP released the GEO-6 for Youth report . The first fully interactive e-publication, written by youth for youth to engage, educate, and lead youth towards environmental action.

Also in February, UNEP supported The Global Youth Environment Assembly (YEA) , which was organized by the UN Major Group for Children and Youth . One of the key aims of this assembly was how youth could engage with policymakers ahead of UNEA-5 .

Before COP26 , the Youth4Climate event drew together 400 youth climate leaders from 186 countries to adopt a collective declaration to present to ministers before COP26.

“To successfully ensure a sustainable future for every child and future generations, we must involve them in designing and implementing solutions,” said Boyd. 

For more information, please contact Soo-Young Hwang: [email protected]  

Further Resources

• Principles and Policy Guidance on Children’s Rights to a Healthy Environment in the ASEAN Region
• STEP-UP- A joint commitment by Heads of United Nations Entities
• Emissions Gap Report 2021: The Heat is On
• GEO-6 for Youth report
• UN Major Group for Children and Youth

Related Content

Related Sustainable Development Goals

© 2024 UNEP Terms of Use Privacy   Report Project Concern Report Scam Contact Us

Data, analysis, convening and action.

The world’s largest and most diverse environmental network.

• IUCN WORLD CONSERVATION CONGRESS
• REGIONAL CONSERVATION FORA
• CONTRIBUTIONS FOR NATURE
• IUCN ENGAGE (LOGIN REQUIRED)

IUCN tools, publications and other resources.

• News & Events
• Eastern and Southern Africa
• Eastern Europe and Central Asia
• Mediterranean
• Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean
• North America
• South America
• West and Central Africa
• IUCN Academy
• IUCN Contributions for Nature
• IUCN Library
• IUCN Red List of Threatened Species TM
• IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas
• IUCN World Heritage Outlook
• IUCN Leaders Forum
• Protected Planet
• Union Portal (login required)
• IUCN Engage (login required)
• Commission portal (login required)

Get Involved

Our resources share the knowledge gathered by IUCN’s unique global community of 16,000+ experts. They include databases, tools, standards, guidelines and policy recommendations. We author hundreds of books, assessments, reports, briefs and research papers every year.

IUCN Issues Briefs provide key information on selected issues central to IUCN’s work. They are aimed at policy-makers, journalists or anyone looking for an accessible overview of the often complex issues related to nature conservation and sustainable development.

Conservation tools

IUCN's conservation tools consist of conservation databases, metrics and other knowledge products. These products have helped hundreds of organisations design, monitor and implement just and effective conservation.

IUCN produces publications on a wide range of topics to share our expertise on nature, conservation and sustainable development. Publications include reports, analyses, best practices, standards, periodicals from IUCN Commissions and numerous other types of knowledge from the Union.

Search all resources

• Sunday 28 July 28 2024, 11:00 – 16:30 (TBC)
• Courtyard Marriot (Frangipani Room)

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Multicriteria evaluation framework for industrial heritage adaptive reuse: the role of the ‘intrinsic value’.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, good practices of brownfield sites regeneration, 3. methodology and indicators overview, 4. case study: ex-italsider in bagnoli district, naples (italy), 4.1. historical and spatial overview of the case study, 4.2. structuring of the decision problem, 4.3. alternative regeneration project scenarios, 4.4. multi-criteria evaluation, 5. discussion of the results, sensitivity analysis, 6. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Desvigne, M. City as Nature. Lotus 2015 , 157 , 32–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bianchini, F. Remaking European Cities: The Role of Cultural Policies. In Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration. The West European Experience ; Bianchini, F., Parkinson, M., Eds.; Manchester University Press: Manchester, UK, 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• TICCIH. The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage. In The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage ; The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage (TICCIH): Moscow, Russia, 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• ICOMOS; TICCIH. The “Dublin Principles”. Joint ICOMOS–TICCIH Principles for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage Sites, Structures, Areas and Landscapes. Adopted by the 17th ICOMOS General Assembly on 28 November 2011. Available online: https://ticcih.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GA2011_ICOMOS_TICCIH_joint_principles_EN_FR_final_20120110.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2024).
• Trifa, R.-M. Preservation and Transformation: The Role of Industrial Heritage in Urban Regeneration. Acta Tech. Napoc. Civ. Eng. Archit. 2018 , 61 , 186–197. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fusco Girard, L.; Vecco, M. The “Intrinsic Value” of Cultural Heritage as Driver for Circular Human-Centered Adaptive Reuse. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 3231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Growth within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe ; McKinsey & Company: Chicago, IL, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development ; United Nation: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations New Urban Agenda. In Proceedings of the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III), Quito, Ecuador, 17–20 October 2016.
• Keeney, R.L. Value-Focused Thinking ; Harvard University Press: London, UK, 1996; ISBN 9780674931985. [ Google Scholar ]
• TICCIH. Industrial Heritage Re-Tooled. The TICCIH Guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation ; Douet, J., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 9781315426525. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiong, X.; Wang, Y.; Ma, C.; Chi, Y. Ensuring the Authenticity of the Conservation and Reuse of Modern Industrial Heritage Architecture: A Case Study of the Large Machine Factory, China. Buildings 2023 , 13 , 534. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nikolić, M.; Drobnjak, B.; Kuletin Ćulafić, I. The Possibilities of Preservation, Regeneration and Presentation of Industrial Heritage: The Case of Old Mint “A.D.” on Belgrade Riverfront. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 5264. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Das, A.; Saraswat, S. Evaluating Adaptive Reuse Potential of Abandoned Factories in India: A Case of Mangalore Tile Factories along the Malabar Coast. Int. J. Architecton. Spat. Environ. Des. 2023 , 17 , 169–192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Gregorio, S.; De Vita, M.; Paris, A. Industrial Heritage Rethinking: Flexibility Design for Eco-Friendly Environments. Buildings 2023 , 13 , 1048. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Masoud, E.; Gharipour, M. Developing a Model to Weigh Cultural Values in the Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings: The Case of the Risbaf Factory in Isfahan, Iran. J. Inst. Conserv. 2022 , 45 , 105–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Quivik, F.L. The Historical Significance of Tailing and Slag: Industrial Waste as Cultural Resource. IA-J. Soc. Ind. Archeol. 2007 , 33 , 35–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bertacchini, E.; Frontuto, V. Economic Valuation of Industrial Heritage: A Choice Experiment on Shanghai Baosteel Industrial Site. J. Cult. Herit. 2024 , 66 , 215–228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bullen, P.A.; Love, P.E.D. Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings. Struct. Surv. 2011 , 29 , 411–421. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaya, D.I.; Pintossi, N.; Koot, C.A.M.; Colenbrander, B.F. CLIC Deliverable D1.5—Report on Barriers and Bottlenecks. 2019. Available online: https://www.clicproject.eu/files/D1-5.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2024).
• Andrade, M.J.; Costa, J.P.; Jiménez-Morales, E. Challenges for European Tourist-City-Ports: Strategies for a Sustainable Coexistence in the Cruise Post-COVID Context. Land 2021 , 10 , 1269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kiel, K.A. Measuring the Impact of the Discovery and Cleaning of Identified Hazardous Waste Sites on House Values. Land Econ. 1995 , 71 , 428–435. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kohlhase, J.E. The Impact of Toxic Waste Sites on Housing Values. J. Urban Econ. 1991 , 30 , 1–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Michaels, R.G.; Smith, V.K. Market Segmentation and Valuing Amenities with Hedonic Models: The Case of Hazardous Waste Sites. J. Urban Econ. 1990 , 28 , 223–242. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reichert, A.; Small, M.; Mohanty, S. The Impact of Landfills on Residential Property Values. J. Real. Estate Res. 1992 , 7 , 297–314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferronato, C.; Vianello, G.; De Feudis, M.; Vittori Antisari, L. Technosols Development in an Abandoned Mining Area and Environmental Risk Assessment. Appl. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 6982. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xie, P.F. A Life Cycle Model of Industrial Heritage Development. Ann. Tour. Res. 2015 , 55 , 141–154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kyaw, K.S.; Fufa, S.M.; Kraniotis, D. Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Heritage Building—Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Using a Case Study in Norway. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2023 , 1196 , 012107. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, R. Pouring Vitality and Reconstructing Memory: Baosteel Industrial Heritage Landscape Renovation Design Study. E3S Web Conf. 2024 , 536 , 01026. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faramarzi, H.; Khakzand, M. Eco-Revelatory: The Missing Link in the Development of Adaptive Landscape to Industrial Heritage Sites. Herit. Soc. 2024 , 1–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jamhawi, M.; Mubaideen, S.; Mahamid, B. Industrial Heritage: Towards a Sustainable Adaptive Reuse of Wheat Milling Heritage Buildings in Jordan. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2023 , 13 , 335–350. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ertaş Beşir, Ş.; Çelebi Karakök, M.E. Determination of Conservation–Reuse Parameters for Industrial Heritage Sustainability and a Decision-Making Model Proposal. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 6796. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Añibarro, M.V.; Andrade, M.J.; Jiménez-Morales, E. A Multicriteria Approach to Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Heritage: Case Studies of Riverside Power Plants. Land 2023 , 12 , 314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Della Spina, L.; Carbonara, S.; Stefano, D.; Viglianisi, A. Circular Evaluation for Ranking Adaptive Reuse Strategies for Abandoned Industrial Heritage in Vulnerable Contexts. Buildings 2023 , 13 , 458. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bermudo Gamboa, C.; Martín-Béjar, S.; Claver, J.; Sevilla Hurtado, L. Multicriteria Decision Methodology Applied to the Textile Factory “La Juanona” in Antequera. Adv. Sci. Technol. 2023 , 132 , 494–501. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dell’Ovo, M.; Bassani, S.; Stefanina, G.; Oppio, A. Memories at Risk. How to Support Decisions about Abandoned Industrial Heritage Regeneration. Valori E Valutazioni 2020 , 24 , 107–115. [ Google Scholar ]
• Han, S.H.; Zhang, H. Progress and Prospects in Industrial Heritage Reconstruction and Reuse Research during the Past Five Years: Review and Outlook. Land 2022 , 11 , 2119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, X.; Jiang, L.; Cheng, B.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, X.L.; Zheng, Y.D.; Fu, Y. Evaluating Urban Industrial Heritage Value Using Industrial Heritage Matrix Analytic Hierarchy Process Models. Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev. 2024 , 12 , 6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Claver, J.; García-Domínguez, A.; Sebastián, M.A. Multicriteria Decision Tool for Sustainable Reuse of Industrial Heritage into Its Urban and Social Environment. Case Studies. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 7430. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Y.; Li, H.; Li, W.; Li, Q.; Hu, X. Value Assessment for the Restoration of Industrial Relics Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Case Study of Shaanxi Steel Factory in Xi’an, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021 , 28 , 69129–69148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bullen, P.A.; Love, P.E.D. Factors influencing the adaptive re-use of buildings. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2011 , 9 , 32–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaya, D.I.; Pintossi, N.; Dane, G. An Empirical Analysis of Driving Factors and Policy Enablers of Heritage Adaptive Reuse within the Circular Economy Framework. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 2479. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, L.; Li, M.; Zhou, Q. Three Strategies in One Project—Revitalization of the International Export Company (Kiangsu). Buildings 2022 , 12 , 133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aranđelović, M.; Videnović, A.; Gadžić, N.; Tomanović, D. Repurposing and the Impact of New Facilities on the Potential Presentation of Industrial Heritage. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 5915. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, X.; Yu, L.; Fang, H.; Wu, J. Research on the Protection and Reuse of Industrial Heritage from the Perspective of Public Participation—A Case Study of Northern Mining Area of Pingdingshan, China. Land 2021 , 11 , 16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pavlović, J.; Šabanović, A.; Ćuković-Ignjatović, N. Energy Efficiency Improvement in Industrial Brownfield Heritage Buildings: Case Study of “Beko.”. In Technological Imagination in the Green and Digital Transition. CONF.ITECH 2022 ; The Urban Book Series; Arbizzani, E., Cangelli, E., Clemente, C., Cumo, F., Giofrè, F., Giovenale, A.M., Palme, M., Paris, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 821–830. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popelová, L. The Symbolic-Aesthetic Dimension of Industrial Architecture as a Method of Classification and Evaluation: The Example of Bridge Structures in the Czech Republic. Acta Polytech. 2007 , 47 , 23–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gustafsson, C.; Amer, M. Forsvik, Sweden: Towards a People–Public–Private Partnership as a Circular Governance and Sustainable Culture Tourism Strategy. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 4687. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alavi, P.; Sobouti, H.; Shahbazi, M. Adaptive Re-Use of Industrial Heritage and Its Role in Achieving Local Sustainability. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2022 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Madani, S.S.; Kamelnia, H.; Ghalehnovi, A. Assessing User’s Satisfaction in Innovation Centers with Industrial Heritage Renovation. Int. J. Hum. Cap. Urban Manag. 2024 , 9 , 279–298. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vizzarri, C.; Sangiorgio, V.; Fatiguso, F.; Calderazzi, A. A Holistic Approach for the Adaptive Reuse Project Selection: The Case of the Former Enel Power Station in Bari. Land Use Policy 2021 , 111 , 105709. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, P.; Li, Q.; Guo, H.; Li, H. Quantifying the Core Driving Force for the Sustainable Redevelopment of Industrial Heritage: Implications for Urban Renewal. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021 , 28 , 48097–48111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Scaffidi, F. Average Social and Territorial Innovation Impacts of Industrial Heritage Regeneration. Cities 2024 , 148 , 104907. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ben Ghida, D. Revitalizing Urban Spaces: Ten Key Lessons from the “Viaduc Des Arts” Adaptive Reuse and Placemaking. Front. Archit. Res. 2024 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, Q. The Social Production of Industrial Heritage Spaces in the Background of Cultural Governance: A Comparative Study Based on Cases from Taipei and Hong Kong. Buildings 2023 , 13 , 1579. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meng, F.; Pang, Y.; Zhi, Y. Multicriteria Model for Determining the Best and Low-Cost Methods of Industrial Heritage Transformation and Utilization under Fuzzy Inputs. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 3083. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, C.; Song, Y.; Zhao, Y. An Evaluation Study on Tourists’ Environmental Satisfaction after Re-Use of Industrial Heritage Buildings. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 3032. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, W.; Xiong, G.; Zhong, L.; Li, K.; Li, H.; Skitmore, M.; Talebian, N. Research into Satisfaction with Industrial Heritage Renewal Based on the SEM-IPA Model: A Case Study of the Dongguan Jianyuzhou Park. Land 2022 , 11 , 403. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bazazzadeh, H.; Nadolny, A.; Attarian, K.; Safar Ali Najar, B.; Hashemi Safaei, S.S. Evaluating The Attribute Of Industrial Heritage In Urban Context On Natural Movement Distribution. The Case Study of Dezful City. Int. J. Conserv. Sci. 2022 , 13 , 579–592. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pieczka, M.; Wowrzeczka, B. Art in Post-Industrial Facilities—Strategies of Adaptive Reuse for Art Exhibition Function in Poland. Buildings 2021 , 11 , 487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van der Merwe, C.D.; Timothy, D.J. Industrial Heritage Tourism in Africa. In Cultural Heritage and Tourism in Africa ; Routledge: London, UK, 2023; pp. 200–216. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pardo Abad, C.J. Valuation of Industrial Heritage in Terms of Sustainability: Some Cases of Tourist Reference in Spain. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 9216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ionica, A.; Samuil, I.; Leba, M.; Toderas, M. The Path of Petrila Mining Area towards Future Industrial Heritage Tourism Seen through the Lenses of Past and Present. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 9922. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Radziszewska-Zielina, E.; Adamkiewicz, D.; Szewczyk, B.; Kania, O. Decision-Making Support for Housing Projects in Post-Industrial Areas. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 3573. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jarczewski, W.; Koj, J. Spatial Factors Affecting the Functional Diversity of Regenerated Brownfields: The Case of Silesian Voivodeship (Poland). Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2023 , 31 , 84–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fusco Girard, L.; Nocca, F.; Gravagnuolo, A. Matera: City of Nature, City of Culture, City of Regeneration. Towards a Landscape-Based and Culture-Based Urban Circular Economy. Aestimum 2019 , 74 , 5–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fusco Girard, L.; Trillo, C.; Bosone, M. Matera, Città Del Sistema Ecologico Uomo/Società/Natura: Il Ruolo Della Cultura per La Rigenerazione Del Sistema Urbano/Territoriale ; Giannini Publisher: Naples, Italy, 2019; ISBN 9788869061202. [ Google Scholar ]
• Council of Europe European Landscape Convention. European Treaty Series-No. 176, Florence, Italy, 20 October 2000 , Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 2000.
• Corboz, A. Le Territoire Comme Palimpseste et Autres Essais. Diogène 1983 , 121 , 14–35. Available online: https://www.marcellinbarthassat.ch/files/le_territoire_comme_palimpseste.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2024).
• Ruskin, J. The Seven Lamps of Architecture ; Dover Publications: New York, NY, USA, 1849. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris, W. Old and New: Address at the Twelfth Annual Meeting-SPAB. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting-SPAB, London, UK, 3 July 1889. [ Google Scholar ]
• Riegel, A. The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin. Oppositions 1982 , 25 , 20–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Australia ICOMOS. The Burra Charter. The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance ; Australia ICOMOS: Burwood, Australia, 2013; Revisions adopted by Australia ICOMOS (the Australian National Committee of ICOMOS) on 19–30 October 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Australia ICOMOS. The Burra Charter. The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance ; Australia ICOMOS: Burwood, Australia, 1979; Adopted by Australia ICOMOS (the Australian National Committee of ICOMOS) on 19 August 1979 at Burra, South Australia. [ Google Scholar ]
• European Parliament. Access to Culture in the European Union ; European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loures, L. Post-Industrial Landscapes as Drivers for Urban Redevelopment: Public versus Expert Perspectives towards the Benefits and Barriers of the Reuse of Post-Industrial Sites in Urban Areas. Habitat. Int. 2015 , 45 , 72–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fusco Girard, L.; Nocca, F. La Rigenerazione Del “Sistema Matera” Nella Prospettiva Dell’economia Circolare. In Matera, Città Del Sistema Ecologico Uomo/Società/Natura Il Ruolo Della Cultura per La Rigenerazione Del Sistema Urbano/Territoriale ; Fusco Girard, L., Trillo, C., Bosone, M., Eds.; Giannini Publisher: Naples, Italy, 2019; pp. 69–100. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Medici, S.; De Toro, P.; Nocca, F. Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development: Impact Assessment of Two Adaptive Reuse Projects in Siracusa, Sicily. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 311. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pinto, M.R.; Bosone, M.; Ciampa, F. Sustainable Reuse Indicators for Ecclesiastic Built Heritage Regeneration. In Technological Imagination in the Green and Digital Transition. CONF.ITECH 2022 ; The Urban Book Series; Arbizzani, E., Arbizzani, E., Cangelli, E., Clemente, C., Cumo, F., Giofrè, F., Giovenale, A.M., Palme, M., Paris, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 669–681. [ Google Scholar ]
• SoPHIA Consortium. Deliverable D2.3-Final Version of the SoPHIA Impact Assessment Model ; SoPHIA Consortium, 2021. Available online: https://sophiaplatform.eu/uploads/sophiaplatform-eu/2021/11/04/aaccb1ae0b65909e6440d545882820c9.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2024).
• Nocca, F.; Bosone, M. The Role of the Local Community in Implementing the Human Circular Tourism: Recommendations, Actions, and Multidimensional Indicators. In Advances in Science, Technology and Innovation (ASTI) ; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH: Hessen, Germany, 2024. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fusco Girard, L. The Evolutionary Circular and Human Centered City: Towards an Ecological and Humanistic “Re-Generation” of the Current City Governance. Hum. Syst. Manag. 2021 , 40 , 753–775. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gehl, J. Cities for People ; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-1597265737. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Montis, A.; De Toro, P.; Droste-Franke, B.; Omann, I.; Stagl, S. Assessing the Quality of Different MCDA Methods. In Alternatives for Environmental Valuation ; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 99–133. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fusco Girard, L. Risorse Architettoniche e Culturali: Valutazioni e Strategie Di Conservazione ; Franco Angeli: Milano, Italy, 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
• Palacio Buendía, A.V.; Pérez-Albert, Y.; Serrano Giné, D. Mapping Landscape Perception: An Assessment with Public Participation Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Analysis Techniques. Land 2021 , 10 , 632. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hwang, C.-L.; Yoon, K. Multiple Attributes Decision Making. Methods and Applications. A State-of-the-Art Survey ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeleny, M. Comments on Ch. Carlsson’s “Realism in Hierarchical Modeling: A Fuzzy Systems Approach”. In Adequate Modeling of Systems ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1983; pp. 22–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dodd, N.; Donatello, S.; Cordella, M. Level(s)-A Common EU Framework of Core Sustainability Indicators for Office and Residential Buildings, User Manual 1: Introduction to the Level(s) Common Framework (Publication Version 1.0) ; European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate B, Growth and Innovation, Unit 5, Circular Economy and Industrial Leadership: Seville, Spain, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robinson, J. Likert Scale. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research ; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 3620–3621. [ Google Scholar ]
• Likert, R. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 1932 , 22 , 55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simos, J. Evaluer L’Impact Sur L’Environnement: Une Approche Originale Par L’Analyse Multicritère et La Négociation ; Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes: Lausanne, Switzerland, 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferretti, V.; Bottero, M.; Mondini, G. Decision Making and Cultural Heritage: An Application of the Multi-Attribute Value Theory for the Reuse of Historical Buildings. J. Cult. Herit. 2014 , 15 , 644–655. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• United Nations. Our Common Future Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development-Brundtland Report ; World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED): Oslo, Norway, 1987. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Nocca, F.; Bosone, M.; Orabona, M. Multicriteria Evaluation Framework for Industrial Heritage Adaptive Reuse: The Role of the ‘Intrinsic Value’. Land 2024 , 13 , 1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081266

Nocca F, Bosone M, Orabona M. Multicriteria Evaluation Framework for Industrial Heritage Adaptive Reuse: The Role of the ‘Intrinsic Value’. Land . 2024; 13(8):1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081266

Nocca, Francesca, Martina Bosone, and Manuel Orabona. 2024. "Multicriteria Evaluation Framework for Industrial Heritage Adaptive Reuse: The Role of the ‘Intrinsic Value’" Land 13, no. 8: 1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081266

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Advancements in E-Fuel combustion systems for a sustainable energy future

• Boretti, Alberto

The term "e-fuel" typically refers to synthetic fuels produced using renewable energy sources, primarily starting with green hydrogen. Hydrogen serves as the foundational e-fuel, but there are also proposed solutions involving combining hydrogen with carbon dioxide to produce e-fuels that resemble today's alkanes or alcohols. The production process integrates water electrolysis, CO₂ capture, and fuel synthesis, all powered by renewable sources like wind and solar energy. Key processes include hydrogen generation using various electrolyzers and CO₂ capture from either direct air capture or industrial sources. Subsequently, hydrogen and captured CO₂ are synthesized into hydrocarbons using methods such as Methanol Synthesis, Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis, and the Sabatier Process. Advances in catalyst technology, reactor design, and renewable energy integration are enhancing production efficiency and feasibility. Although currently more expensive than fossil fuels, e-fuels are expected to become cost-competitive with technological advancements and supportive policies. They offer significant environmental benefits, including carbon neutrality and reduced pollution. One crucial enabler of e-fuels is the development of novel combustion systems for internal combustion engines. Innovations such as direct injection and jet ignition improve combustion efficiency when using e-fuels. These systems enable optimized premixed or diffusion combustion, balancing efficiency and performance for both liquid and gaseous fuels resembling diesel or gasoline. E-fuels are poised to play a vital role in achieving a sustainable, low-carbon energy future, particularly in sectors where direct electrification is challenging. Continued research and policy support are essential for their further development, with direct injection and jet ignition systems playing an integral part in this transformative journey.

• Water electrolysis;
• CO₂ capture;
• Hydrogen generation;
• Renewable energy;
• Reactor design;
• Direct injection;
• Jet ignition;
• Combustion efficiency;
• Carbon neutrality;
• Sustainable energy